Skip to main content

Full text of "Yorkshire Archaeological Journal Vol. 40"

See other formats







UJorftsbtre  archaeological  Society 




The  West  Yorkshire  Printing  Co.  Limited,  Wakefield, 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Yorkshire  Archaeological  & Historical  Society 

, ’i  i 


Volume  XL  covers  the  published  parts  of  the  Journal  for 
the  years  1959  (Part  157),  1960  (Part  158),  1961  (Part  159)  and 
1962  (Part  160). 

This  is  the  second  complete  volume  edited  by  the  present 
editor.  May  I again  extend  my  thanks  to  the  Council,  to  members 
of  the  Society  and  to  the  various  contributors  for  their  tolerance, 
encouragement  and  help. 

The  index  to  this  volume  has  been  compiled  by  Miss  Audrey 
Naim  of  the  Brotherton  Library,  University  of  Leeds. 

LESLIE  P.  WENHAM,  Hon.  Editor . 


Preface  . . . . . . . . . . . . v 

Index  . . . . . . . . . . . . 666 


The  Defences  of  Isurium  Brigantum  (Aldbor- 

ough)  ..  . . . . • . . . 1 

J.  N.  L.  MYRES,  K.  A.  STEER  AND  MRS.  A.  M.  H.  CHITTY 

Yorkshire  Final  Concords  of  the  Reign  of  Henry  II  78 


Romano-British  Discoveries  at  Crayke,  N.R.  Yorks. 

(i)  Sites  at  Woodhouse  Farm,  Crayke  . . 90 

R.  H.  HAYES 

(ii)  The  Trial  Excavation  . . . . . . 99 


Penistone  Grammar  School  in  the  Nineteenth 

Century  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  112 


The  Agriculture  of  the  East  Riding  of  Yorkshire 



The  Excavation  of  Beaker  Burials  at  Staxton, 

East  Riding,  1957  . . . . . . . . 129 

I.  M.  STEAD 

The  East  Window  of  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey  Church, 

York  . . . . . . . . . . 145 


The  Discovery  of  Reindeer  Bones  in  Stump  Cross 

Caverns,  Greenhow  Hill  . . . . . . 160 


Thornborough  Cursus,  Yorks.  . . . . . . 169 


An  Iron  Age  Site  at  Driffield,  East  Riding,  Yorks.  183 


Dives  House  Barn  at  Dalton,  near  Huddersfield  192 



Notes  on  the  Early  Generations  of  the  Family  of 

Constable  of  Halsham  . . ..  ..  197 


Sir  George  Savile,  Edmund  Burke,  and  the  York- 
shire Reform  Programme,  February,  1780  . . 205 


Mesolithic  Flint  Axes  from  the  West  Riding  of 

Yorkshire  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  209 


A Ring-marked  Rock.  The  Grey  Stone,  Harewood 

Park  ..  : ...  ..  ..  215 

e.  t.  cowling  and  c.  e.  hartley 

Portrait  of  a Yorkshire  Squire:  John  Fullerton  of 

Thrybergh  (1778-1847)  ..  . . ..  217 

j.  T.  WARD 

Defence  Measures  for  the  West  Riding,  1586  . . 227 


The  Pre-Conquest  Churches  of  York  : with  an 
Appendix  on  Eighth-Century  Northumbrian 

Annals  . . . . . . . , . . . 232 


A Study  in  the  Manorial  History  of  Halifax  Parish 
in  the  Sixteenth  and  Early  Seventeenth 
Centuries.  Part  i ..  . . ..  ..  250 

Addendum  to  above  . . . . 441 

Part  II  . . . . . . . . 420 




Seven  Archaeological  Discoveries  in  Yorkshire  ..  298 


Excavations  and  Discoveries  adjoining  the  South- 
West  Wall  of  the  Roman  Legionary  Fortress 
in  Feasegate,  York,  1955-1957  . . . . 329 

Addendum  . . . . . . . . . . 587 n 


The  Hero  as  Genealogist  : General  Plantagenet- 

Harrison  . . . . . . . . . . 351 




Richmondshire  Presentments  in  the  Reign  of  Queen 

Anne  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  371 


A Note  on  Clay  Pipes  from  Hungate,  York  . . ; 378 


Enclosure  by  Agreement  at  Healaugh  (W.R.)  . . 382 


Clifton  Grammar  School,  near  Brighouse,  West 

Riding  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  392 

e.  p.  green 

West  Riding  Commissioners  of  Enclosure,  1729-1850  401 


The  Palmes  Family  of  Naburn  and  their  Contribution 

to  the  Survival  of  Roman  Catholicism  . . 443 

Addendum  to  above  . . . . . . ...  665 

t.  b.  trappes-lomax 

An  Inquiry  into  the  Date  of  the  Stained  Glass  in 

the  Chapter  House  at  York  . . . . 451 


Notes  on  Two  Heraldic  Tombs  . . . . . . 462 


The  Monastic  Settlement  of  North-East  Yorkshire  478 


. t . . , . . . „ • , J.  1 

The  Advowson  of  St.  Martin’s  Church  in  Micklegate, 

York  . . . . . . . . . . 496 


Excavations  and  Discoveries  within  the  Legionary 

Fortress  in  Davygate,  York,  1955-8  . . 507 

peter  wenham 

Country  against  Court.  Christopher  Wyvill,  a 

Yorkshire  Champion  . . . . . . 588 


Whitby  1958  . . . . . . . . . . 604 

PHILIP  a.  rahtz 

A Rinyo-Clacton  Vase  from  Wykeham,  North  Riding, 

Yorks.  . . . . . . . . . . 619 

J.  W.  MOORE  AND  T.  G.  MANBY 

A New  Engraved  Rock  from  Wharfedale,  West 

Riding  of  Yorkshire  . . . . 622 




The  Monastic  Grange  as  a Factor  in  the  Settlement 

of  North-East  Yorkshire  . . . . . . 627 


Early  Churchwardens’  Presentments  in  the  Arch- 
deaconry of  Richmond  . . . . . . 657 


Crayke:  a Seventeenth  Century  Peculiar  . . 662 


Acknowledgements  . . . . 163,  328,  505,  665 

Corrigenda  et  Addenda  ..  167,  441,  587 n,  665 

Reviews  . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 

r . ■' 

,:i  ; 


• : A \ 


i • 

f\  '■  I 


t ' 



Hrcbaeologtcal  Journal. 


H)orftsbtre  Archaeological  Society. 

Part  157. 



The  West  Yorkshire  Printing  Co.  Limited,  Wakefield. 



{being  the  First  part  of  Volume  XL). 

J.  N.  L.  Myres,  K.  A.  Steer  and  Mrs.  A.  M.  H.  Chitty 

Sir  Charles  Travis  Clay,  C.B.,  F.B.A. 


(i)  Sites  at  Woodhouse  Farm,  Crayke 
R.  H.  Hayes 

(ii)  The  Trial  Excavation 

E.  J.  W.  Hildyard,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 


John  Addy 


Alan  Harris,  M.A. 

EAST  RIDING,  1957. 

I.  M.  Stead,  B.A. 


John  A.  Knowles,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 


Major  E.  R.  Collins,  D.S.O. 


History  of  Richmond  School 
Beverley  Corporation  Minute  Books. 

Ed.  K.  A.  Macmahon 



The  Defences  of  ISURIUM  BRIGANTUM  (Aldborough). 

Figs.:  I,  p.  2;  2,  p.  4;  3,  p.  13;  4,  p.  14;  5,  p.  16;  6,  facing  p.  18;  7,  p.  20; 
8,  p.  22;  9,  p.  24;  10,  p.  26;  11,  p.  28;  12,  p.  29;  13,  facing  p.  30; 
14,  p.  32;  15,  p.  40;  16,  p.  42;  17,  p.  44;  18,  p.  48;  19,  p.  51;  20, 
facing  p.  52;  21,  p.  54;  22,  p.  57;  23,  p.  59;  24,  p.  65;  25,  p.  69;  26, 
p.  74;  27,  p.  76. 

Plates  : Ia  and  Ib,  facing  p.  41;  IIa  and  IIb,  facing  p.  43;  IIIa  and 
IIIb,  facing  p.  47;  IVa  and  IVb,  facing  p.  55. 

Romano-British  Discoveries  at  Crayke,  N.R.  Yorks. 

(i)  Sites  at  Woodhouse  Farm,  Crayke. 

Figs.:  1,  p.  91;  2,  p.  93;  3,  p.  94;  4,  p.  96. 

(ii)  The  Trial  Excavation. 

Figs.:  5,  p.  100;  6,  p.  102;  7,  p.  106;  8,  p.  107. 

The  Agriculture  of  the  East  Riding  of  Yorkshire  before  the 
Parliamentary  Enclosures. 

Fig.:  1,  p.  120. 

The  Excavation  of  Beaker  Burials  at  Staxton,  East  Riding,  1957. 

Figs.:  1,  p.  130;  2,  facing  p.  131 ; 3,  p.  132;  4,  p.  134;  5,  p.  135;  6,  p.  137 ; 
7,  p.  139;  8,  p.  141. 

Plates:  I,  facing  p.  132;  IIa  and  IIb,  facing  p.  134. 

The  East  Window  of  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey  Church,  York. 

Figs.:  1,  p.  147;  2,  p.  149;  3,  p.  150;  4,  p.  151;  5,  p.  152;  6,  p.  158. 
Plates  : I,  facing  p.  146;  II,  facing  p.  156. 

The  Discovery  of  Reindeer  Bones  in  Stump  Cross  Caverns,  Greenhow 

Fig.:  1,  p.  161. 

Plates:  I,  facing  p.  160;  II,  facing  p.  162. 














Yorkshire  Archeological  Journal 



By  J.  N.  L.  Myres,  K.  A.  Steer  and  Mrs.  A.  M.  H.  Chitty. 


The  following  report  is  a record  of  investigations  carried  out 
at  Isurium  Brigantum  (Aldborough)  during  the  summers  of  1934-5 
and  1937-8  under  the  auspices  of  the  Roman  Antiquities  Com- 
mittee of  the  Yorkshire  Archaeological  Society.  The  excavations 
of  1934-5  were  directed  by  Mr.  Myres  and  Mrs.  Chitty,  and  those 
of  1937-8  by  Dr.  Steer  and  Mrs.  Chitty.  The  authors  and  the 
Committee  are  deeply  indebted  to  Lady  Lawson-Tancred  and  the 
late  Sir  Thomas  Lawson-Tancred  not  only  for  permission  and 
active  encouragement  to  undertake  the  work,  but  also  for  their 
generosity  in  providing  accommodation  for  the  excavators,  space 
for  the  cleaning,  examination  and  storage  of  the  relics,  and  the 
necessary  equipment  from  the  Estate  Office.  We  also  wish  to 
thank  Captain  B.  T.  Hutton  Croft  for  permission  to  excavate  on 
the  northern  defences  in  1938;  Messrs.  Clayton,  Daniels  and 
Penrose  (tenants);  and  the  numerous  voluntary  helpers,  among 
whom  should  be  mentioned  especially  Mr.  R.  Gilyard-Beer  and 
the  late  Mr.  W.  V.  Wade,  both  of  whom  assisted  in  the  preparation 
of  this  report  as  well  as  giving  their  services  in  the  field.  For 
advice  on  the  finds  we  are  particularly  indebted  to  the  late  Dr. 
Felix  Oswald,  who  examined  and  commented  upon  the  whole  of 
the  Samian  pottery;  to  Dr.  D.  B.  Harden  who  has  reported  on 
the  glass;  and  to  Mr.  J.  P.  Gillam  who  has  given  us  his  opinion 
on  the  dates  of  certain  critical  sherds  of  coarse  pottery  found 
during  the  last  two  seasons. 



Fig  1. 

Town  defences  superimposed  on  25-inch  map. 



Isurium  Brigantum,2  the  cantonal  capital  of  the  Brigantes, 
and  the  most  important  purely  civilian  site  in  Roman  Yorkshire, 
lies  on  the  south  side  of  the  valley  of  the  Ure,  covering  the  crossing 
of  that  river  by  the  main  Roman  road  from  York  to  Catterick 
and  the  north.  The  diversion  of  the  road  a mile  or  so  to  the  west 
in  mediaeval  times  led  to  the  replacement  of  Isurium  by  Borough- 
bridge  as  the  point  of  crossing,  and  the  present  name  Aldborough 
no  doubt  arose  to  contrast  the  old  borough  with  the  new  one  at 
the  bridge.  For  this  reason,  though  it  has  always  been  a sub- 
stantial village,  Aldborough  has  not  suffered  from  recent  expansion, 
and  is  still  comfortably  contained  within  the  circuit  of  the  Roman 
walls  (fig.  1).  The  main  outlines  of  the  Roman  town  have  long 
been  familiar,  the  only  major  problem  being  the  position  of  the 
north-west  angle.  In  1924  Mr.  S.  C.  Barber  located  the  north-east 
angle  and  the  north  gate,  and  showed  that  the  wall  ran  straight 
between  these  points  approximately  on  the  Ordnance  Survey  line. 
But  its  course  west  of  the  gate  remained  uncertain.  Local  tradi- 
tion placed  the  north-west  angle  in  the  neighbourhood  of  a large 
tree  in  the  northern  part  of  O.S.  57,  and  the  course  of  the  west 
wall  from  the  known  position  of  the  west  gate,  in  the  road 
opposite  the  Manor  House,  to  this  tree  is  clear  enough  from  an 
embankment  running  down  the  field.  But  the  tree  lies  con- 
siderably to  the  south  of  any  prolongation  of  the  line  of  the  wall 
between  the  north-east  corner  and  the  north  gate.  Hence  the 
Ordnance  Survey,  in  accepting  the  tree  as  the  site  of  the  angle, 
was  forced  to  take  the  wall  along  a lynchet,  produced  in  fact  by 
an  obsolete  field-boundary,  which  pursues  a somewhat  tortuous 
course  across  O.S.  57,  56,  and  55,  culminating  in  a sharp  re-entrant 
angle  of  the  most  improbable  kind  immediately  south-west  of  the 
north  gate  (fig.  1).  From  the  Ordnance  Survey,  this  hypothetical 
line,  which  mars  the  general  symmetry  of  the  town's  plan,  has 
found  its  way  into  several  standard  works.3 

1 This  section  is  only  concerned  with  discoveries  which  throw  light  on 
the  plan  of  the  town,  or  on  the  nature  of  its  defences.  Details  of  these  and 
of  other  discoveries  up  to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  are  to  be 
found  in  Ecroyd  Smith’s  Reliquiae  Isurianae  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ES), 
which  also  contains  lithographic  illustrations  of  the  majority  of  the  pave- 
ments. The  best  of  several  more  recent  summaries  is  that  by  Collingwood 
in  the  British  Association  Excursions  Handbook  Q (Leeds,  1927),  which 
incorporates  unpublished  material  in  the  Haverfield  Library,  Oxford. 
Lady  Lawson -Tancred’s  Guide  Book  to  the  Antiquities  of  Aldborough  and 
Boroughbridge  (3rd  edition,  1948)  also  contains  much  useful  information. 

2 The  name  occurs  simply  as  Isurium  in  Ptolemy’s  Geography  (ii,  3,  10), 
and  on  Routes  I and  II  in  the  Antonine  Itinerary;  on  Route  V of  the 
Itinerary  it  appears  as  Isu(rium)brigantum.  Ekwall  considered  that  the 
name  might  have  been  derived  from  a Celtic  river  name  I sura  ( English 
River  Names,  s.v.  Ure),  but  this  is  far  from  certain  (cf.  Jackson,  Language 
and  History  in  Early  Britain,  523). 

3 E.g.  Collingwood,  Archaeology  of  Roman  Britain,  fig.  24,  ix;  Elgee, 
The  Archaeology  of  Yorkshire,  fig.  28. 



i I 
I l 



















1 1924 












K.  A.5T  £ ER. 



IOO  O 100  200  300  400  500  600  700  800  900  IOOO 


Fig.  2 


Apart  from  the  1924  excavations,  discussed  below,  previous 
investigation  of  the  defences,  notably  by  Andrew  Lawson  in  the 
first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  was  almost  entirely  confined 
to  the  south-west  quarter  of  the  town,  where  several  stretches  of 
the  wall  and  the  remains  of  three  internal  towers  and  an  external 
bastion  were  exposed  in  the  grounds  of  Aldborough  Manor. 
Although  they  are  no  longer  visible,  four  gates  are  known,  one  in 
each  side,  the  south  and  west  gates  being  still  used  by  modern 
roads,  while  the  north  gate,  which  must  have  gone  out  of  use 
when  the  Roman  bridge  over  the  Ure  gave  place  to  the  mediaeval 
crossing  at  Boroughbridge,  lies  120  yards  from  the  north-east 
angle.  The  exact  position  of  the  east  gate,  from  which  two  pivot- 
stones  were  found  in  the  grounds  of  Aldborough  Hall  in  1772,1 
is  uncertain,  but  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  lay  opposite 
the  west  gate.  Within  the  town,  the  foundations  of  a range  of 
rooms  at  least  220  feet  in  length,  which  can  hardly  have  been 
anything  else  but  the  shops  or  offices  forming  the  north  side  of 
the  forum  (market-hall),  were  uncovered  in  1770  during  the 
rebuilding  of  the  north  wall  of  the  churchyard.2  In  addition,  a 
few  substantial  private  houses  have  been  partially  explored  from 
time  to  time,  and  a number  of  mosaic  pavements  found.3  But 
this  exploration  has  never  been  systematic,  the  discoveries  have 
often  been  accidental,  and  in  no  case  has  a building  been  closely 
dated.  The  Roman  street-plan  appears  to  have  followed  the  usual 
chess-board  pattern,  since,  apart  from  one  house  close  to  the 
west  wall,  all  the  buildings  so  far  revealed  are  in  alignment  with 
the  defences,  but  there  is  little  evidence  of  this  pattern  in  the 
present  arrangement  of  the  village  streets.  In  addition  to  the 
main  streets  running  from  the  south  and  west  gates  towards  the 
centre  of  the  village,  two  subsidiary  roads  in  the  south-east 
quarter  may  be  of  Roman  origin,  and  the  rectangular  lay-out  of 
the  existing  houses  and  gardens  in  the  southern  half  of  the  town 
may  represent  the  persistence  of  old  property  boundaries  as  well 
as  natural  convenience  on  the  steep  hillside.  Outside  the  town 
wall,  a bowl-shaped  depression  lying  between  the  south-east  angle 
and  Studforth  Hill  has  been  interpreted,  on  somewhat  dubious 
grounds,  as  an  amphitheatre,4  while  Roman  cemeteries  have 

1 ES.,  27,  and  pi.  xxii,  7-8. 

2 Gough’s  Camden’s  Britannia  (1806),  iii.  300,  and  pi.  xvi,  fig.  1.  On 
Ecroyd  Smith’s  plan  (pi.  iii),  these  remains  are  shown  out  of  alignment 
with  the  town  wall,  but  this  is  due  to  an  error  in  the  orientation  of  the 
church  on  the  same  plan.  When  the  necessary  correction  is  made,  the 
rooms  are  seen  to  fall  into  place  on  the  south  side  of  the  Roman  street 
linking  the  east  and  west  gates  (fig.  2). 

3 Ecroyd  Smith  curiously  makes  no  mention  of  the  perfect  pavement, 
representing  Romulus  and  Remus  being  suckled  by  the  wolf,  which  is 
reported  to  have  been  found  in  1840  near  the  east  gate  of  the  town,  and 
which  is  now  in  the  City  Museum,  Leeds.  A photograph  of  this  pavement 
is  given  in  Elgee,  op.  cit.,  pi.  vii. 

4 Collingwood,  op.  cit.,  fig.  26e.  A partial  section  of  the  northern  bank 
of  this  depression  cut  in  1935  showed  that  this  feature  was  apparently 


been  found  on  the  east  side  of  the  road  leading  to  the  south  gate, 
and  also  near  the  north-west  and  south-west  angles.1 

In  1924  Mr.  S.  C.  Barber  did  a little  digging  on  the  northern 
defences  of  the  town,  and  on  the  road  that  ran  from  the  north 
gate  to  the  River  Ure.  Apart  from  a brief  resume  in  the  Journal 
of  Roman  Studies ,2  no  account  of  this  work  has  been  published, 
and  neither  the  typewritten  report  nor  the  illustrations  are  in  a 
form  suitable  for  publication.3  In  view  of  subsequent  operations 
in  the  area,  however,  it  has  been  thought  advisable  to  give  the 
following  summary  of  the  results,  and  to  incorporate  the  structures 
concerned  in  the  plans  illustrating  the  present  report. 

The  North  Road  and  the  North  Gate  (figs.  1 and  21). 

The  Roman  road  running  northwards  from  Isurium  to  the 
crossing  of  the  Ure  was  located  300  yards  north  of  the  town  and 
was  traced  southwards  as  far  as  the  north  gate.  It  averaged  30 
feet  in  width,  and  consisted  of  rammed  cobbles  and  gravel  2-3 
feet  in  thickness.  About  130  yards  from  the  town  wall,  the  road 
changed  direction  from  south  to  south-south-west,  and  may  have 
thrown  out  a branch  aiming  for  the  north-east  corner  of  the  town. 
It  is  true  that  the  only  evidence  for  the  existence  of  this  supposed 
branch  is  that,  in  a section  cut  immediately  to  the  south  of  the 
bend,  the  main  road  appeared  to  abut  another  cambered  and 
cobbled  surface.  On  the  other  hand,  the  provision  of  a by-pass 
road,  skirting  the  north-east  defences  and  rejoining  the  Roman 
Great  North  Road  some  200  yards  from  the  east  gate,  is  inherently 
likely  since  it  would  allow  through  traffic  to  avoid  the  town. 
From  the  change  of  direction  to  the  gate,  the  road  was  thought 
to  have  something  resembling  a raised  footpath  along  its  eastern 
margin,  but  this  feature  was  not  definitely  proved.  At  the  point 
where  the  western  edge  of  the  road  intersected  the  line  of  the 
town  wall,  two  large  dressed  blocks  of  millstone  grit,  presumably 
belonging  to  the  west  pier  of  the  gate,  were  found  bedded  on  clay 
and  cobble  footings.  Here,  two  superimposed  road  surfaces  were 
detected,  the  lowest  of  which  was  level  with  the  tops  of  the  blocks, 
while  the  other  was  9 inches  higher  and  overlapped  the  blocks  by 
about  1 foot.  Except  for  a rough  wall,  bedded  in  the  latest  road 
surface  and  apparently  blocking  the  east  portal,  no  other  details 
of  the  gateway  were  recovered. 

The  North-East  Angle  (fig.  19,  Site  A). 

A section  cut  across  the  north-east  angle  located  the  town 
wall  at  a depth  of  5 feet.  It  was  8 feet  3 inches  thick  above  an 
external  offset  course,  and  was  faced  on  both  sides  with  red 
sandstone  ashlar.  Only  three  courses  of  the  inner  face  and  two 

1 ES.,  21-7. 

2 xiv.  221. 

3 A copy  of  the  report  and  photographs  of  the  plans,  sections,  and 
structures  examined  have  been  deposited  in  the  library  of  the  Yorkshire 
Archaeological  Society. 


courses  of  the  outer  face  remained  in  situ.  The  foundation-trench, 
which  was  6 feet  6 inches  deep  and  filled  with  clay  and  cobbles, 
had  been  cut  through  alluvial  sand  to  reach  boulder  clay.  The 
outer  face  of  the  wall  was  uncovered  for  a length  of  34  feet,  and 
a rampart-bank  was  observed  and  partly  sectioned.  In  front  of 
the  wall,  the  eastern  edge  of  the  clay  and  cobble  footings  of  a 
bastion  was  traced  northwards  for  24  feet:  all  that  remained  of 
the  superstructure  was  a single  millstone-grit  block  set  1 foot 
back  from  the  edge  of  the  footings  at  the  northern  end  of  the 
trench.  The  fact  that  the  bastion  was  not  bonded  into  the  town 
wall  suggested  that  it  was  an  addition  to  the  original  defences. 
Owing  to  the  short  length  uncovered,  it  is  not  possible  to  gauge 
its  size  with  any  accuracy,  but  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  it 
approximated  to  that  of  the  north-west  angle-bastion  found  in 

The  North  Wall  (fig.  19,  Site  B). 

The  inner  face  of  the  town  wall  was  discovered  120  feet 
west  of  the  north-eastern  angle  where  it  was  standing  to  within 
1 foot  of  the  present  surface.  The  masonry,  again  consisting  of 
red  sandstone  ashlar,  was  only  exposed  to  a depth  of  six  courses. 
There  was  an  offset  of  4 inches  between  the  sixth  (lowest)  and 
fifth  courses,  and  another  of  2J  inches  between  the  third  and 
second  courses. 

Excavations  within  the  Town. 

(a)  On  Site  C (fig.  19)  the  north-east  corner  of  a building 
was  found  18  inches  below  the  surface.  The  north  wall  was  traced 
for  34  feet,  the  east  wall  for  15  feet,  and  a party- wall,  parallel  to 
the  east  wall,  for  7 feet  6 inches.  The  north  and  east  walls  were 
up  to  4 feet  2 inches  high  and  were  laid  on  clay  and  cobbles, 
while  the  party- wall,  3 feet  6 inches  high,  was  bedded  on  concrete. 
Traces  of  two  floors  were  observed  in  the  north-east  corner. 

(b)  On  Site  D (fig.  19)  a wall,  13  inches  below  the  surface, 
was  uncovered  for  a distance  of  23  feet  6 inches.  It  was  2 feet 
6 inches  thick  and  stood  to  a maximum  height  of  3 feet  in  eight 
courses.  Underneath  what  was  thought  to  be  a cross- wall  at  the 
east  end  of  the  trench  there  were  three  infant  skeletons.  It  is 
particularly  unfortunate  that  no  details  are  recorded  of  the 
“immense  quantities"  of  pottery  found  on  this  site,  but  from  a 
comparison  of  the  depths  of  their  foundations  with  those  of  the 
town  wall  in  the  same  area  it  is  clear  that  both  buildings  C and 
D are  appreciably  later  in  date  than  the  stone  defences. 

(c)  Superficial  trenching  on  the  west  side  of  the  hedge  that 
divides  O.S.  46  and  55,  160  feet  south  of  the  north  gate,  revealed 
patches  of  cobbling,  hypocaust-  and  roofing-tiles,  eight  fragments 
of  dressed  stones,  and  the  upper  part  of  a milestone  with  four 
lines  of  text,1  at  a depth  of  18  inches  to  2 feet  below  the  turf. 

1 IMP(erator)  / CAES(ar)  / G(aius)  ME/[S]SIV[S]  Cf.  Journal  of  Roman 
Studies,  xiv,  246. 


The  epigraphic  record  of  Isurium  is  meagre  in  the  extreme, 
the  only  inscriptions  of  historical  significance  being  a tile-stamp 
of  the  Ninth  Legion,1  and  the  milestone  of  Decius  referred  to 
above;  though  a certain  intrinsic  interest  attaches  to  a Greek 
inscription  on  a mosaic  pavement2  in  view  of  the  comparative 
rarity  of  Greek  inscriptions  in  this  country.  Early  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  however,  Mr.  Andrew  Lawson  began  a systematic 
collection  of  small  finds  from  the  town,  and  this  collection,  which 
is  housed  in  a Museum  near  the  south  gate,  has  been  maintained 
and  enlarged  by  successive  owners  of  Aldborough  Manor.3  The 
historical  implications  of  the  coins  and  pottery  in  this  collection 
are  discussed  in  the  next  section  of  this  report,  while  the  fine 
series  of  enamelled  and  bronze  objects  from  the  site,  some  of 
which  are  illustrated  by  Ecroyd  Smith,4  merit  separate  publication. 

The  aims  of  the  excavations  of  1934-8  were  to  establish  the 
position  of  the  north-west  angle,  and  to  determine  the  structure 
and  date  of  the  defences.  The  first  of  these  objectives  was  realised 
in  1934-5,  and  subsequent  operations  were  largely  devoted  to 
control  sections  at  other  points  on  the  perimeter  of  the  town  in 
order  to  test  whether  the  defences  were  homogeneous,  and  to 
amplify  the  dating  material  recovered  in  the  first  two  seasons. 


Although  the  excavations  of  1934-8  were  primarily  concerned 
with  the  structure  and  date  of  the  defences,  they  inevitably 
brought  to  light  a certain  amount  of  incidental  information 
bearing  directly  or  indirectly  upon  the  earlier  and  later  history 
of  the  town.  In  the  following  synopsis  these  scattered  threads 
are  brought  together,  in  conjunction  with  others  derived  from 
previous  discoveries,  and  are  presented  in  chronological  order. 

Earliest  Occupation. 

No  trace  was  found  of  any  pre-Roman  occupation  of  the 
site.  The  lowest  occupation-layers  in  every  trench  were  of  Roman 
date,  and  the  few  pieces  of  hand-made  native  pottery  produced 
by  the  excavations  were  all  found  in  association  with  Roman 
sherds.  This  negative  evidence  wins  support  from  the  complete 
absence  of  Early  Iron  Age  relics  in  the  Museum,5  and  confirms, 
what  has  long  been  suspected,  that  Isurium  did  not  evolve  out 
of  a native  Brigantian  stronghold,  but  was  a purely  Roman 
foundation.6  A study  of  the  pottery  and  coins  in  the  Museum 
indicates  that  occupation  began  in  the  reign  of  Vespasian,  while 

1 Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum,  vii,  1224d. 

2 Ephemeris  Epigraphica,  vii,  937. 

3 This  Museum  has  now  been  placed  in  the  care  of  the  Ministry  of  Works. 

4 ES.,  pis.  xx,  xxv  and  xxva.  The  remarkable  bronze  terret  from 
Aldborough,  now  in  the  Yorkshire  Museum,  York,  is  described  and  illustrated 
by  Richmond  in  the  Journal  of  Roman  Studies,  xliv,  49  and  pi.  ii. 

5 The  Dobunian  coin  (p.  63)  is  presumably  a stray. 

6 The  most  likely  candidate  for  Queen  Cartimandua’s  capital  is  the 
hill-fort  of  Almondbury,  near  Huddersfield  ( cf . Arch.  Journ.,  cv.  46-8  and  60). 


a tile  bearing  the  stamp  of  the  Ninth  Legion1  implies  building 
activity  at  some  time  between  the  arrival  of  this  Legion  at  York 
in  71-4  A.D.,2  and  its  replacement  by  the  Sixth  Legion  in  122 
A.D.  In  view  of  the  strategic  importance  of  the  site,  at  the  point 
where  the  Roman  road  to  the  north  approaches  the  crossing  of 
the  Ure  and  is  joined  by  a lateral  road  from  Ilkley,3  it  is  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  an  auxiliary  fort  would  be  established  here  by 
Cerialis  in  71-4  A.D.  during  his  conquest  of  Brigantia.  No  signs 
of  such  a fort  have  so  far  been  discovered,  but  sleeper-trenches 
belonging  to  two  Flavian  buildings  were  encountered  in  the 
course  of  the  excavations — one  outside  the  north-west  corner  of 
the  town  in  1935,  and  the  other  near  the  north  gate  in  1938.  The 
latter  building,  whose  walls  had  been  of  wattle-and-daub,  coated 
internally  with  painted  plaster,  yielded  pottery  manufactured 
about  70  A.D.,  and  may  have  been  one  of  the  houses  of  the 
canabae  attached  to  the  fort.  First-century  pottery  was  also  found 
near  the  centre  of  the  village  during  the  laying  of  a pipe-line  in 
the  winter  of  1934-5,  while  continuous  building  activity  from 
Flavian  times  onwards  is  attested  by  the  sandpit  located  in  1935. 
But  at  what  stage  this  growing  township  was  raised  to  the  status 
of  a cantonal  capital  is  as  yet  unknown.  No  trace  has  been  found 
of  an  earlier  enclosing  earthwork  like  those  at  Verulamium,4 
Silchester,5  or  Brough-on-Humber,6  and  the  town  only  emerges 
from  obscurity  in  the  full  panoply  of  its  stone  defences. 

The  Stone  Defences. 

The  walls  enclosed  a roughly  rectangular  area  of  55  acres 
shaped  more  or  less  like  an  elongated  playing-card,  a plan  normal 
in  military  but  comparatively  rare  on  civilian  sites:  the  closest 
parallel  among  Romano-British  towns  is  Venta  Silurum  (Caerwent) 
in  South  Wales — a place  which  represented  the  most  westerly 
extension  of  tribal  government  into  the  highland  zone  of  Britain, 
just  as  Isurium  was  its  furthest  outpost  to  the  north.  The  longer 
axis  of  the  town  lay  north  and  south  down  the  valley  side,  the 
southern  part  being  built  on  a moderately  steep  slope  where  the 
rock  lies  close  to  the  surface,  while  the  northern  part  was  flat 
and  rested  on  alluvial  sand.  Although  nothing  is  known  of  their 
structure,  the  four  gates  were  also  sited  according  to  military 
principles,  the  north  and  south  gates  being  placed  centrally  in 
their  respective  sides,  while  the  east  and  west  gates  were  slightly 
advanced  towards  the  north  side,  thus  leaving  room  for  important 
public  buildings  along  the  minor  axis.  The  town  wall  was  erected 
on  a footing  of  clay  and  cobbles  and  varied  from  8 feet  to  9 feet 

1 Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum,  vii,  1224d. 

2 Journal  of  Roman  Studies,  xv,  183-5. 

3 For  the  road  from  York  to  Aldborough  in  relation  to  the  river-system, 
cf.  E.  Kitson  Clark,  Arch.  Journ.,  lxxviii,  391-6. 

4 R.  E.  M.  and  T.  V.  Wheeler,  Verulamium,  49. 

5 Archaeologia,  92,  129. 

6 Journ.  British  Arch.  Assoc.,  3rd  ser.  vii,  11. 


3 inches  in  thickness  at  the  base:  above  this  it  was  reduced  in 
thickness  by  internal  offsets,  spaced  at  irregular  intervals,  and  its 
original  height,  including  parapet  and  battlements,  must  have 
been  at  least  20  feet.  The  facing-stones  were  of  local  red  sand- 
stone, almost  certainly  obtained  from  the  large  quarries  that  can 
still  be  seen  outside  the  south-west  angle,  and  the  core  was  com- 
posed of  sandstone  rubble  set  in  hard  white  mortar.  As  far  as  is 
known,  no  reused  material  was  employed.  At  the  back  of  the 
wall  there  was  a rampart-bank  of  sand  or  clay,  measuring  21  feet 
in  width  by  about  12  feet  in  height  at  the  wall  face;  while  in  front 
of  the  wall  there  was  a berm  10-14  feet  wide,  and  then  a ditch 
some  17  feet  wide  and  5-6  feet  deep.  The  remains  of  four  rect- 
angular internal  towers  have  been  found  attached  to  the  curtain 
wall,  one  at  each  of  the  southern  angles,  and  two  others  evenly 
spaced  between  the  south-west  angle  and  the  south  gate.  The 
south-east  angle-tower,  examined  in  1937,  measured  17  feet  6 inches 
by  16  feet  6 inches  internally  and  was  packed  with  sand  to  a height 
of  at  least  8 feet.  Of  the  remainder,  all  of  which  were  excavated 
but  imperfectly  recorded  in  the  early  nineteenth  century,  only  the 
easternmost  can  now  be  planned  (fig.  17).  It  measures  12  feet 
by  10  feet  within  walls  5 feet  thick,  and  was  also  presumably 
solid  to  the  level  of  the  rampart-walk  since  its  back  wall,  now 
standing  to  a maximum  height  of  2 feet  2 inches,  shows  no  sign 
of  an  entrance,  while  the  side  walls  would  be  concealed  by  the 

The  evidence  for  the  date  of  the  defences  may  be  sum- 
marised as  follows  : 

1.  The  surface  of  the  road  contemporary  with  the  defences 
at  the  north  gate  produced  a coin  of  Hadrian,  dated 
134-8  A.D.,  which  was  in  fresh  condition  when  lost,  and 
two  pieces  of  Antonine  Samian  ware,  the  later  of  which 
is  dated  by  Dr.  Oswald  circa  140-50  A.D.  This  road  was 
completely  sealed  by  another  road  on  which  there  was  a 
denarius  of  Severus  Alexander  (222-35  A.D.)  in  mint 

2.  The  latest  sherds  sealed  by,  or  incorporated  in,  the 
rampart-bank  are  of  Antonine  date,  but  include  nothing 
that  need  be  later  than  150  A.D.  Rubbish  dumped  on 
top  of  the  bank  in  the  northern  part  of  the  town  con- 
tained pottery  ranging  in  date  from  the  Antonine  period 
to  the  fourth  century. 

3.  A cooking-pot  broken  in  the  south-east  angle-tower 
during  the  erection  of  the  defences  is  dated  150-200  A.D. 

4.  A hut  built  against  the  back  wall  of  the  south-east  angle- 
tower  probably  dates  to  the  late  Antonine  period  (162-96 
A.D.),  but  might  be  third  century. 


It  is  thus  established  that  the  defences  of  Isurium  were 
built  at  some  time  in  the  second  half  of  the  second  century,1  but 
any  more  precise  estimate  of  their  age  would  be  purely  speculative 
in  the  present  state  of  knowledge.  For  although  on  a narrow 
reading  the  evidence  inclines  to  a date  not  far  removed  from 
150  A.D.,  and  there  is  the  added  temptation  to  suppose  that 
increased  taxes,  levied  to  meet  the  cost  of  the  new  town  walls, 
may  have  furnished  the  spark  that  touched  off  the  Brigantian 
revolt  of  154-5  A.D.,  experience  at  V erulamium  has  shown  that, 
even  where  extensive  trenching  has  been  undertaken,  the  latest 
coin  or  potsherd  recovered  from  beneath  the  defences  or  found  in 
the  rampart-bank,  may  antedate  the  fortifications  by  as  much  as 
half  a century.2  On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Corder’s  theory  that 
the  majority  of  the  Roman  town  walls  in  Britain  belong  to  the 
years  194-7  A.D.3  wins  no  support  from  Isurium.  For  if  we  are 
right  in  thinking  that  the  first  reconstruction  observed  at  the 
north  gate  in  1938  was  a direct  result  of  the  incursion  of  the 
Maeatae  in  197  A.D.,  the  erection  of  the  defences  must  be  put 
back  for  an  appreciable  number  of  years  before  that  date — long 
enough,  in  fact,  for  the  road  contemporary  with  the  defences  to 
have  been  repaired  at  least  once,  and  for  considerable  wear  to 
have  taken  place  on  the  base  of  the  water-tank. 

That  the  defences  were  designed  to  conform  to  an  existing 
street-plan  was  proved  at  the  north  gateway  in  1938,  but  it  is 
not  known  whether  any  of  the  internal  buildings  were  recon- 
structed at  this  time.  As  the  plan  shows  (fig.  2),  these  buildings 
are  concentrated  in  the  higher,  southern  half  of  the  town,  and  it 
may  well  be  that  the  northern  extension  was  planned  to  allow  for 
an  expansion  of  population.  At  some  time  in  the  first  half  of 
the  second  century  an  attempt  was  made  to  raise  the  level  of 
much  of  this  northern  area  by  dumping  large  quantities  of  dirty 
sand  over  it;  subsequently  further  dumping  was  undertaken, 
probably  because  the  construction  of  the  town  wall  blocked  the 
natural  drainage  of  the  slope  and  turned  the  region  into  a swamp. 

Later  History. 

Hardly  anything  is  known  of  the  town  in  the  third  century. 
As  has  already  been  remarked,  structural  alterations  observed  at 
the  north  gate  may  represent  repairs  following  the  barbarian 
invasion  of  197  A.D.,  while  at  least  one  house  appears  to  have 

1  At  one  time  a Severan  date  was  considered  probable  ( Journal  of 
Roman  Studies,  xxix,  204)  since  the  cooking-pot  found  in  the  angle-tower 
was  thought  to  be  an  early  third-century  type,  while  the  coin  recovered 
from  the  footings  of  the  town-wall  in  1938,  though  not  identifiable  with 
certainty,  is  more  readily  assigned  to  Julia  Domna,  wife  of  Septimius 
Severus,  than  to  anyone  else  (cf.  p.  59,  no.  4).  Now  that  the  date  of  the 
cooking-pot  has  been  revised,  however,  the  coin  cannot  be  allowed  to 
override  the  rest  of  the  evidence — and  particularly  that  from  the  north 

2 Journal  of  Roman  Studies,  xlvi,  135. 

3 Arch.  Journ.,  cxii,  24. 



been  rebuilt  between  the  end  of  the  second  century  and  the  last 
quarter  of  the  third  century.1  Two  milestones,  one  of  which  was 
found  near  the  north  gate  in  1924  (supra,  p.  7)  and  the  other 
3 miles  south  of  Aldborough  in  1776, 2 testify  to  a general  overhaul 
of  the  road-system  in  the  reign  of  Decius  (249-51  A.D.),  while  the 
coin-list  (pp.  57-63)  indicates  considerable  activity  in  the  town  at 
the  close  of  the  third  century  under  the  usurper  Carausius. 

In  common  with  those  of  many  other  Romano-British 
towns,  the  defences  of  Isurium  were  drastically  reorganised  in  the 
fourth  century.  The  town  wall  was  now  equipped  with  very  large 
angle-bastions  and  somewhat  smaller  interval-bastions,  semi- 
circular or  semi-oval  on  plan  and  of  solid  construction.  The 
original  ditch  was  replaced  by  a new  one,  sited  in  advance  of  the 
bastions,  and  the  east  portal  of  the  north  gate  was  blocked  up. 
Sherds  found  in  the  town  ditch  under  the  interval-bastion  in 
1935  suggest  that,  as  at  Caerwent  and  Great  Casterton,  this 
reorganisation  should  be  dated  to  about  350  A.D.3  Within  the 
town,  too,  there  is  evidence  of  widespread  rebuilding  in  the  first 
half  of  the  fourth  century.  Many  of  the  mosaic  pavements  which 
adorned  the  large  and  wealthy  houses  in  the  southern  part  of 
the  town  date  stylistically  to  this  period,  while  dwellings  have 
now  begun  to  spring  up  in  the  less  attractive  northern  portion. 
This  peaceful  and  prosperous  state  of  affairs  appears  to  have 
suffered  a temporary  eclipse  during  the  combined  assault  of  the 
Piets,  Scots  and  Saxons  in  367  A.D.,  for  evidence  of  Theodosian 
repair-work  has  been  noted  at  the  north  gate  and  also  possibly 
at  the  south-east  angle.  The  town  made  a vigorous  recovery, 
however,  and  both  coins  and  pottery  testify  to  a continued 
occupation  down  to  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  Indeed  the 
most  striking  feature  of  the  coin  list  is  that  no  less  than  one-fifth 
of  the  total  number  of  coins  in  the  Museum  collection  are  later 
than  the  Piets’  War. 


By  J.  N.  L.  Myres  and  Mrs.  A.  M.  H.  Chitty. 

In  the  first  season,  since  only  a limited  time  was  available, 
and  the  work  had  mostly  to  be  done  by  inexperienced  voluntary 
labour,  attention  was  concentrated  on  determining  the  course  of 
the  wall,  north  and  east  of  the  tree  in  O.S.  57  mentioned  above. 
Two  sections  were  cut  (fig.  3),  one  (Section  II)  65  feet  long  across 
the  Ordnance  Survey  line  east  of  the  tree,  and  the  other  (Section  I) 
40  feet  long,  north-west  of  it  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  angle 
might  be  blunted  in  the  same  way  as  the  north-east  angle  appears 
to  be.  In  neither  of  these  sections  as  originally  planned  and  dug 

1 ES.,  16. 

2 Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum,  vii,  1180. 

3 Arch.  Journ.,  cxii,  20-42. 

PART  O S.  44 


Fig.  3. 



was  there  any  sign  of  the  expected  town  wall,  nor  was  the  strati- 
fication revealed  in  either  sufficiently  informative  to  merit  detailed 
publication.  The  natural  yellow  sand  was  reached  in  both  cases 
at  depths  varying  from  7 to  11  feet,  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
material  cut  through  consisted  of  extremely  loose  dirty  sand,  with 
very  puzzling  patches  and  streaks  of  burnt  material,  producing 
throughout  a good  deal  of  pottery,  broken  brick,  tile,  wall-plaster, 
tesserae,  animal  bones  and  other  builders'  and  domestic  rubbish. 
The  date  of  this  deposit,  which  appears  to  have  been  the  result  of 
a deliberate  attempt  to  level  up  the  area  through  which  the 
sections  ran,  could  not  be  securely  established,  but  it  is  not  likely 
to  be  earlier  than  the  late  second  or  third  century.  A considerable 
quantity  of  second-century  Samian,  including  a dish  of  form 
18/31  stamped  PATRICI-M  (fig.  4,  3),  was  found  near  the 

Section  II  (1934).  Scale  = 

1 and  3 Terra  Sigillata.  2.  Imitation  terra  sigillata. 

bottom  in  the  northern  part  of  Section  II,  but  this  area  was 
much  disturbed  by  the  roots  of  the  tree  which  had  penetrated 
long  distances  through  the  very  loose  material.  The  stratification 
was  elsewhere  vitiated  by  trenches  and  pits  dug  in  the  sandy 
soil,  and  the  sides  of  some  of  these  having  collapsed,  later  objects 
properly  belonging  to  the  pits  may  have  been  introduced  into 
the  deposit  itself.  The  clearest  evidence  for  the  sequence  of 
periods  here  came  from  the  southern  end  of  Section  II.  Here  at 
7 feet  2 inches  from  the  present  surface  the  clay  and  cobble 
footings  of  a wall  2 feet  3 inches  wide  and  built  on  the  natural 
sand  were  found  running  roughly  N.N.E.  (see  fig.  5).  It  was 
no  part  of  our  plan  to  explore  buildings  inside  the  town  nor 
would  it  have  been  possible  to  do  so  at  this  depth  with  the  avail- 
able labour,  and  nothing  was  found  in  the  small  section  un- 
covered by  which  the  building  of  this  wall  could  be  dated.  It  had, 


however,  clearly  been  deliberately  dismantled  for  the  footings  were 
covered  by  a layer  of  burnt  clay,  containing  Antonine  Samian 
(parts  of  a form  33  and  of  two  38s),  and  this  itself  underlay  the 
deposit  of  dirty  sand  and  stones  mentioned  above.  Subsequent 
to  the  laying  down  of  this  deposit,  however,  a ditch  some  10  feet 
wide  and  five  feet  deep  had  been  driven  through  the  deposit  and 
the  underlying  wall  footings  roughly  at  right  angles  to  them. 
This  ditch  was  filled  with  black  earth  and  charcoal  and  contained 
a good  deal  of  fourth  century  and  earlier  pottery  including  Samian 
38  M-ARTM,  a complete  imitation  38  in  brown  ware  (fig.  4,  1 and  2), 
grey  flanged  bowls,  the  rim  of  a buff  hammer-headed  mortarium, 
and  part  of  a buff  bowl  with  zig-zag  lines  in  red  paint  on  the 
flanged  rim.  While  therefore  Section  II  threw  no  light  on  the 
main  object  of  our  search  it  did  produce  evidence  to  show  that 
considerable  changes  had  taken  place  in  the  layout  of  this  part  of 
the  town  during  Roman  times:  that  a building  which  had  stood  here 
early  in  the  second  century  had  been  demolished  in  or  soon  after 
the  Antonine  period,  that  the  whole  area  had  been  levelled  up 
with  several  feet  of  sand  and  debris  and  that  in  the  fourth  century, 
while  no  evidence  for  further  buildings  was  forthcoming,  a sub- 
stantial ditch  had  been  dug  and  had  filled  up  slowly  with  silt  and 
the  refuse  of  occupation.  It  may  be  added  that  nothing  was 
found  in  this  section  to  suggest  occupation  before  the  Trajan- 
Hadrian  period:  first  century  Samian  and  coarse  pottery  was 
almost  entirely  absent. 

The  south-end  of  Section  I was  contiguous  with  the  north 
end  of  Section  II  and  the  similarity  of  its  stratification  showed 
that  the  area  levelled  up  in  the  late  second-third  century  extended 
further  to  the  north-west.  Towards  the  middle  of  the  section, 
however,  the  deposit  thinned  out  to  nothing  against  the  rising 
surface  of  a sandy  bank  which  developed  a capping  of  dark 
occupation  earth  and  charcoal.  The  very  rough  unmortared 
cobble  footings  of  two  walls  about  2 feet  thick  and  some  13  feet 
apart  crossed  the  section  (see  fig.  3).  They  were  set  upon  the 
sandy  bank  and  were  clearly  associated  with  its  capping  of 
occupation  earth,  which  contained  pottery  running  from  the 
Antonine  period  to  the  fourth  century,  and  they  evidently  be- 
longed to  some  hut-like  structure  whose  shape  could  not  be 
investigated.  At  the  north  end  of  the  section  the  sandy  bank, 
whose  depth  there  was  no  time  to  determine,  merged  imper- 
ceptibly into  a bank  of  stiff  clay,  and  in  the  last  few  days  at  our 
disposal  the  Section  was  hastily  lengthened  some  ten  feet  north- 
westwards, since  it  was  rightly  guessed  that  this  sand  and  clay 
bank  was  probably  a rampart  backing  of  the  town  wall,  which 
was  the  object  of  our  search.  The  wall  itself,  or  rather  the  robber 
trench  above  it,  was  found  on  the  last  day  but  one,  and  the  last 
day  was  feverishly  spent  in  determining  the  depth  of  the  clay 
bank  behind  the  wall  and  its  relation  to  the  wall,  and  in  clearing 
the  front  of  the  wall  to  the  berm-level,  above  which  eight  courses 



Fig.  5.  Section  at  south  end  of  Section  II  (1934). 


of  facing  stones  4 feet  3 inches  in  total  height  were  still  standing. 
Since  the  features  of  the  wall  and  bank  here  were  closely  similar 
to  those  which  showed  themselves  in  the  adjoining  Section  III  of 
1935  which  will  be  discussed  shortly  there  is  no  necessity  to 
describe  them  at  this  point.  It  need  only  be  noticed  that  in 
digging  through  the  clay  bank  behind  the  wall  two  grey  jar  rims 
of  early  second  century  type  were  found  and  that  a piece  of 
Samian  form  27  was  found  immediately  under  the  clay  bank  at 
a depth  of  ten  feet  against  the  back  of  the  wall.  We  were  therefore 
certain  before  the  work  finished  for  1934  that  the  wall  and  bank 
could  not  be  earlier  than  about  120  A.D.  It  should  also  be  recorded 
that  on  the  berm  outside  the  wall  in  this  Section  and  piled  against 
the  face  of  the  wall  to  a depth  of  15  inches  above  the  offset  course 
was  an  untouched  deposit  of  burnt  material,  black  earth  and 
charcoal  conveniently  dated  to  the  fourth  century  by  the  rim  of 
a pink  hammer-headed  mortarium  deeply  embedded  in  it.  The 
relevance  of  this  deposit  to  some  features  of  the  adjoining  Section 
III  will  be  apparent  later  (p.  25). 


The  upshot  of  the  work  done  in  1934  was  to  show  that  the 
north-west  corner  of  the  town  must  have  lain  considerably  further 
north  than  the  tree  which  traditionally  marked  its  site,  for  the 
piece  of  wall  uncovered  in  Section  I was  still  aligned  north  and 
south,  and  showed  no  deflection  eastward  or  other  indication  of 
the  approaching  corner.  It  became  probable  that  the  whole  of 
the  north  wall  was  on  approximately  one  alignment,  that  the  re- 
entrant marked  by  O.S.  had  no  real  existence,  and  that  the  corner 
was  fairly  sharp  like  that  at  the  south-east  of  the  town;  in  this 
case  it  was  to  be  sought  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  hedge 
separating  O.S.  57  from  44. 

During  the  winter  of  1934-5  a pipe-line  for  sewage  disposal 
was  laid  between  Aldborough  and  a pumping  station  east  of 
Boroughbridge  nearer  the  bank  of  the  Ure.  It  ran  (as  shown  on 
fig.  3)  east  and  west  across  the  south-end  of  O.S.  44  and  then 
north  and  south  down  the  whole  length  of  O.S.  56  and  the  southern 
part  of  55  and  so  through  a farmyard  and  into  the  village  street 
opposite  the  church.  Its  trench  thus  provided  an  opportunity  for 
obtaining  a rough  cross-section  of  the  whole  northern  half  of  the 
town,  for  observing  the  apparent  density  of  occupation  and 
perhaps  for  recovering  something  of  its  general  plan.  While  the 
character  of  the  work  and  the  extremely  bad  weather  made  it 
impossible  to  obtain  accurate  information  from  the  trench,  the 
observations  made  along  its  whole  course  by  Miss  Kitson-Clark, 
Mr.  F.  Kirk  Horsell,  and  Mr.  Kent,  and  the  recovery  of  a quantity 
of  pottery  including  a large  dump  of  Samian,  were  of  great  interest 
and  merit  separate  publication.  Three  points  only  need  be  noticed 
here:  first,  that  further  evidence  was  obtained  for  the  levelling 
up  of  the  lower  half  of  the  town  by  the  dumping  of  sand  and 


rubbish;  second,  that  this  part  of  the  town  seems  never  to  have 
been  thickly  built  over,  only  one  set  of  real  house  foundations 
being  encountered  in  the  whole  length  of  O.S.  56;  and  third,  that 
it  was  only  in  the  farmyard  and  in  the  village  street,  near  the 
centre  of  the  town  in  fact,  that  first  century  pottery  was  thrown 
out  of  the  trench  in  any  appreciable  quantities. 

More  important  for  the  present  purpose  was  the  light  thrown 
by  the  trench  on  the  course  of  the  town  wall.  It  was  not  dug 
deep  enough  in  the  relevant  area  to  encounter  the  footings  if  they 
are  still  in  place,  but  it  was  clear  from  the  upper  stratification 
that  the  wall  cannot  have  lain  anywhere  within  O.S.  56;  on  the 
other  hand  between  16  and  26  feet  north  of  the  hedge  between 
O.S.  56  and  44  was  a disturbed  area  which  could  easily  indicate 
the  stone  robber's  trench  which  is  everywhere  present  where  the 
wall  once  ran.  The  subsequent  discoveries  of  1935  make  it  certain 
that  this  was  the  site  of  the  wall,  and  to  these  we  must  now  return. 

The  object  being  still  to  determine  the  course  and  character 
of  the  defences,  the  work  fell  into  two  parts.  The  course  of  the 
wall  was  further  pursued,  first  by  the  digging  of  a section  (Section 
IV)  across  the  presumed  line  immediately  south  of  the  hedge 
between  O.S.  57  and  44:  and  when  the  wall  foundations  were 
found  to  be  still  proceeding  north,  though  the  curve  eastwards  was 
just  beginning,  another  section  (Section  V)  was  dug  north  of  the 
hedge  across  the  angle  itself.  The  discovery  of  further  footings 
outside  the  angle  led  to  the  opening  up  of  a large  external  angle- 
bastion  which  will  be  described  later.  Meanwhile  the  character 
of  the  defences  was  being  examined  in  a section  (Section  III)  cut 
at  right  angles  across  the  whole  defensive  system  as  near  as 
possible  to  the  well-preserved  piece  of  the  wall  which  had  been 
found  in  Section  I in  1934.  In  this  section  we  were  lucky  enough 
to  overrun  the  footings  of  another  much  smaller  bastion  built 
against  the  outer  face  of  the  wall. 

The  evidence  for  the  character  and  date  of  the  defences 
provided  by  these  three  sections  will  now  be  considered. 

Section  III  (fig.  6)  was  6 feet  wide,  ninety  feet  long,  and  varied 
between  seven  and  seventeen  feet  in  depth.  The  unexpected 
depth  to  which  part  of  the  section  had  to  be  taken  behind  the 
wall  was  due  to  the  fact  that  before  it  was  built  the  site  had 
apparently  been  occupied  by  a sandpit;  the  natural  slope  of  the 
ground  falling  away  north  and  west  had  been  cut  into  from  below 
until  a more  or  less  vertical  face  had  been  left  nearly  ten  feet 
high,  some  seventeen  feet  east  of  the  line  selected  by  the  wall 
builders.  The  date  of  these  operations  was  sufficiently  indicated 
by  the  presence  of  an  occupation  level  on  the  floor  of  the  sandpit, 
associated  with  a post-hole  a foot  wide,  which  penetrated  the 
natural  sand  to  a depth  of  eighteen  inches,  and  had  a slot  for  a 
sleeper  beam  running  into  it;  this  perhaps  formed  part  of  a hut 
or  office  belonging  to  the  manager  of  the  sandpit.  In  the  post- 


hole  and  in  the  occupation  floor  associated  with  it  were  parts  of 
a Flavian  reeded  bowl,  two  grey  jar  rims  (fig.  7,  2,  7),  a piece 
of  Samian  form  27,  two  pieces  of  Flavian  rusticated  ware,  pieces 
of  early  pink  jugs,  two  minute  fragments  of  glass,  and  a mussel 
shell;  from  the  sleeper  trench  and  the  floor — two  fragments  of  the 
same  grey  lid.  The  sandpit  is  thus  likely  to  have  been  in  operation 
well  before  the  end  of  the  first  century;  and  it  is  worthy  of  note, 
first,  that  the  Roman  occupation  area  at  Isurium  cannot  at  this 
time  have  possessed  defences  on  this  part  of  their  present  align- 
ment, and  second,  that  the  systematic  digging  of  sand  here  by 
persons  using  normal  Roman  pottery  suggests  that  building 
operations  in  the  Roman  manner  were  taking  place  not  very  far 

How  long  did  the  sand  pit  remain  open?  The  floor  was 
covered  with  a deposit  of  dirty  sand,  thickest  on  the  inner  side 
against  the  steep  face  of  the  pit  and  clearly  derived  from  rain-wash, 
falls  of  sand  off  the  sides,  and  other  accumulations  during  a period 
of  disuse.  In  this  was  a certain  amount  of  pottery  mostly  similar 
in  date  to  that  from  the  floor,  Flavian  rusticated  ware  and  reeded 
bowls,  Samian  27,  35/36,  and  29  (fig.  8,  1,  style  of  PUDENS) 
a piece  of  striated  grey  ware  similar  to  that  from  the  early  deposits 
at  Richborough  (Richborough  II.,  p.  97,  PI.  xxiv,  35)  and  a grey 
jar  rim  of  the  type  of  fig.  7,  1:  it  contained  also  some  pieces 
that  may  be  later,  the  rim  of  a dish  of  a type  occurring  in 
Hadrianic  deposits  on  the  Wall,  and  part  of  a carinated  bowl 
(fig.  7,  10)  for  which  no  obvious  parallels  have  been  noticed. 

Before  leaving  the  pre-wall  period  it  should  be  noticed  that 
it  was  also  represented  in  the  lowest  level  resting  on  natural  sand 
above  the  face  of  the  sandpit,  in  which  scraps  of  Samian  27  and 
18  were  found  associated  with  rusticated  ware  and  part  of  a pink 
mortarium  of  early  second  century  type  (fig.  7,  8);  it  was  also  re- 
presented more  strongly  in  the  lowest  deposits  at  the  west  end  of  the 
Section  which  are  level  with  the  occupation  on  the  floor  of  the 
sandpit,  and  would  have  been  continuous  with  it  before  the  building 
of  the  wall.  Here  there  was  a regular  occupation  floor  but  no  further 
post-holes:  it  produced  a piece  of  Samian  form  27,  the  rim  and 
handle  of  an  early  buff  jug,  part  of  a rough-cast  beaker,  most  of 
a little  grey  beaker  (type  of  fig.  7,  3),  a grey  jar  with  wavy  line  on 
the  neck  (a  type  which  recurs  repeatedly  in  deposits  just  preceding 
the  building  of  the  wall  (fig.  7,  6)  and  a dark  grey  roll-rim  dish 
(fig.  7,  11). 

Not  long  after  the  abandonment  of  the  sandpit  it  was 
deliberately  filled  up,  and  it  is  difficult  to  dissociate  this  event 
from  the  preparations  for  the  building  of  the  Wall  which  provided 
the  most  obvious  context  for  it.  Apparently,  when  the  line  of  the 
Wall  was  laid  out,  it  was  found  to  cross  the  pit  and  sooner  than 
deflect  the  line  it  was  decided  to  fill  up  the  pit,  and  then  cut 
foundations  for  the  Wall  in  the  filling.  The  substantial  nature  of 
the  wall  footings,  consisting  of  a mass  of  clay  and  cobbles  three 



Fig.  7.  Coarse  pottery  from  pre-wall  levels  (1934-5). 


and  a half  feet  deep,  and  wider  than  the  wall  by  two  and  a half 
feet  in  front  and  nearly  two  feet  behind  are  similar  in  scale  to 
those  found  elsewhere  in  the  northern  part  of  the  town,  and  are 
no  doubt  related  to  the  fact  that  they  were  laid  for  the  most  part 
in  made  up  ground.  At  this  point  at  least  they  were  none  too 
substantial,  for  the  whole  wall  here  seems  to  have  tipped  forwards 
and,  when  excavated,  the  front  face  was  out  of  the  true  by  as 
much  as  three  inches  in  four  and  a half  feet. 

The  filling  of  the  pit,  the  building  of  the  wall,  and  the  piling 
up  of  the  clay  bank  behind  were,  it  seems,  interlocking  parts  of 
one  process,  and  the  sequence  of  events  was  clearly  revealed  in 
the  section.  The  accumulation  already  in  the  pit  was  first  cut 
back  from  the  line  the  footings  were  to  take,  but  before  they 
were  laid  the  pit  was  filled  up  to  the  level  of  the  top  of  the  steep 
natural  face.  The  core  of  this  filling  consisted  of  two  heaps  of 
rather  carelessly  laid  turf  cut  in  large  blocks  some  over  two  feet 
long  with  a straight  face  between  them:  into  this  crevice  some 
turves  had  slipped  and  were  still  distinguishable  up-ended  between 
the  two  series  of  horizontal  layers.  On  both  sides  of  this  heap, 
sand,  clay,  and  burnt  debris  of  all  kinds  was  spread  in  layers  to 
a depth  of  some  four  feet;  some  of  it  came  probably  from  the 
digging  of  the  ditch  in  front  of  the  wall,  some  from  inside  the  town. 
This  filling  contained  comparatively  little  datable  material,  scraps 
of  three  Samian  form  27s,  and  of  three  18s,  a piece  of  verti- 
cally combed  grey  rusticated  ware,  the  rim  of  a pink  jug  of 
Flavian  type,  part  of  a dark  purple  glass  handle  and  some  pieces 
of  fused  lead:  nothing  necessarily  later  than  the  Hadrianic  period 
was  found.  After  the  pit  was  full  the  face  of  the  filling  was  cut 
back  and  the  footings  of  the  wall  were  laid  as  already  described: 
a well-defined  surface  developed  on  top  of  the  filling  at  this  stage, 
a line  of  large  cobbles  was  set  out  on  top  of  the  heap  of  turf 
parallel  with  the  wall,  and  a temporary  hearth  lay  between  it  and 
the  back  of  the  filled  pit.  In  this  hearth  were  found  an  As  of 
Nerva,  a flint  flake,  and  some  pottery  including  a piece  of  Samian 
27,  the  rim  of  a 37  of  Trajan-Hadrian  type  and  part  of  a large 
buff-coated  pink  jug:  the  presence  of  red  sandstone  fragments 
showed  that  building  material  for  the  wall  was  also  being  brought 
up.  The  building  of  the  wall  took  place  simultaneously  with  the 
raising  of  the  bank  on  this  level  behind  it.  The  back  part  of  this 
bank  was  of  sand,  turf,  and  rubbish  similar  in  character  to  the 
lower  filling  of  the  sandpit,  and  this  was  heaped  up  first  to  a 
height  of  four  feet:  in  the  top  foot  of  it  and  three  feet  nine  inches 
below  the  present  surface  was  found  a considerably  worn  As  of 
Hadrian  belonging  to  the  earliest  years  of  his  reign.  Between  the 
wall  and  this  sandy  rampart,  whose  face  was  cut  back  to  an 
angle  of  rest  to  receive  it,  was  inserted  a bank  of  stiff  grey  clay, 
about  seventeen  feet  wide  and  between  five  and  six  feet  thick 
where  it  merged  with  the  sandy  bank;  in  front  it  covered  the 
whole  back  of  the  wall  which  is  here  preserved  to  seven  and  a 



Fig.  8.  Scale  = 

Samian  Pottery  (1935). 


half  feet  from  the  footings.  The  slope  of  the  bank  suggests  that 
it  was  originally  some  four  feet  higher,  and  thus  the  outer  face  of 
the  wall  would  have  been  twelve  feet  high  from  the  offset  course 
without  allowing  for  any  projection  above  the  bank;  allowing  a 
projection  of  at  least  five  feet  and  another  three  for  parapet  and 
battlements  the  external  height  of  the  wall  would  have  been  not 
less  than  twenty  feet.  The  clay  bank  was  put  in  in  stages  as  the 
wall  rose,  for  several  lines  of  sandstone  chips  representing  successive 
building  levels  occurred  in  it,  and  the  presence  of  a further  heap 
of  chips  on  the  surface  of  the  bank  fourteen  feet  behind  the  wall 
suggests  that  the  masons  were  still  at  work  after  the  bank  had 
been  completed. 

The  certain  contemporaneity  of  clay  bank  and  wall  makes 
the  contents  of  the  former  of  great  importance  for  dating  the 
whole  defensive  system.  The  clay,  though  very  stiff,  was  far  from 
clean  and  contained  a good  deal  of  broken  tile,  some  oyster  shells, 
and  a little  pottery  and  glass.  It  was,  however,  capped  throughout 
by  an  heavy  occupation  level  containing  a great  deal  of  pottery 
running  from  the  Antonine  period  to  the  fourth  century  (see  fig.  10) : 
from  this  level  rubbish  pits  had  been  dug  into  the  bank  which 
make  it  impossible  altogether  to  eliminate  contamination  of  the 
upper  part  of  the  bank  from  these  later  deposits.  Making  due 
allowance  for  the  possibility  of  such  intrusions,  however,  the  clay 
bank  does  appear  to  contain  along  with  late  first  and  early  second 
century  material  similar  to  that  which  is  typical,  as  we  have 
seen,  of  the  pre-wall  deposits,  a few  pieces  which  can  be  as  late 
as  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Thus  along  with  Samian 
form  27  (two  pieces),  a Flavian  Curie  11,  and  another  grey  jar 
rim  of  the  type  of  fig.  7,  6,  were  for  the  first  time  parts  of  two 
cups  of  form  33,  one  of  them  of  the  delicate  early  type,  the  other 
possibly  Antonine,  and  of  two  37s,  one  of  Trajanic  date,  but 
another  probably  by  CINNAMVS  (fig.  8,  9)  datable  140-150  A.D. 

It  would  thus  appear  that  the  building  of  the  wall  cannot 
be  placed  earlier  than  150:  but  that  it  was  not  much  later  than 
this  is  the  natural  inference  from  the  absence  of  Antonine  pottery 
in  the  sandpit  filling  and  other  pre-wall  deposits:  an  absence 
which  contrasts  strongly  with  its  frequency  in  the  occupation  level 
which  evidently  began  accumulating  on  top  of  the  clay  bank  as 
soon  as  the  wall  was  finished.  This  occupation  which  continued 
from  the  Antonine  period  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  is 
clearly  to  be  connected  with  such  rough  foundations  as  those 
which  have  already  been  described  as  occurring  on  top  of  the 
bank  in  Section  I:  in  Section  III  however  no  structural  remains 
were  found. 

The  wall  itself  which  was  8 ft.  3 inches  thick  above  the 
external  offset  course,  was  built  of  the  local  red  sandstone  which 
outcrops  on  the  upper  slopes  of  the  valley  side  at  the  south  end 
of  the  town,  where  large  quarries  almost  certainly  of  Roman  date 
are  still  to  be  seen  outside  the  south-west  angle.  The  external 



face  was  built  in  regular  courses,  six  inches  deep  of  blocks  varying 
in  length  from  one  to  as  much  as  three  feet.  In  Section  III  only 
three  courses  were  preserved  above  the  offset,  but  when  the  whole 
face  of  the  wall  between  Sections  I and  III  was  subsequently 
opened  up,  eight  courses  were  still  standing  for  part  of  the  distance 
to  a height  of  between  four  and  five  feet.  Straight  joints  between 
the  courses  were  skilfully  avoided  in  spite  of  the  very  varied 
lengths  of  the  stones  employed,  and  several  varieties  of  diamond, 
diagonal,  and  vertical  broaching  were  still  visible  on  many  of  the 

Fig.  9.  Scale  = T 

Samian  Pottery  (1935). 

The  core  of  the  wall  was  composed  of  red  sandstone  rubble 
well  consolidated  with  white  mortar,  and  the  back  was  faced  with 
untrimmed  sandstone  blocks,  laid  in  shallower  and  less  regular 
courses  than  the  front:  eighteen  were  preserved  in  a height  of 
seven  and  a half  feet.  The  width  of  the  wall  was  also  narrowed 
at  the  back  by  successive  offsets  at  irregular  intervals  of  which 
three  were  preserved,  to  little  more  than  seven  feet  at  the  highest 
point  left:  the  appearance  of  a slight  batter  between  the  offsets 
was  probably  due  to  the  forward  settlement  of  the  whole  wall  to 
which  attention  has  already  been  drawn. 

In  front  of  the  wall  there  was  originally  a berm  of  some  ten 
feet  and  then  apparently  a single  ditch  about  thirteen  feet  wide 
and  about  six  feet  deep.  The  dimensions  of  this  ditch  are  some- 
what problematical  for  in  Section  III  it  had  been  very  largely 
obliterated  by  the  foundations  of  the  later  bastion;  similarly  its 


presence  was  completely  masked  in  Section  V by  the  angle  bastion, 
and  there  was  no  time  to  extend  Section  IV  so  as  to  include  it: 
for  these  reasons  it  has  not  been  marked  on  the  plan  (fig.  3). 

It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  the  clay  and  cobble 
footings  of  the  wall  projected  some  two  and  a half  feet  in  front 
of  it,  and  beyond  this  the  similar  clay  and  cobble  footings  of  the 
solid  bastion  extended  to  a point  twenty-two  feet  from  the  face 
of  the  wall.  Its  width  along  the  wall  face  could  not  be  determined 
exactly:  the  northern  edge  was  found  (see  fig.  3)  ten  and  a half 
feet  north  of  Section  III  but  a last  minute  effort  to  find  its 
southern  limit  which  culminated  in  some  perilous  tunnelling  under 
nine  feet  of  loose  stones  and  debris  from  the  wall,  had  to  be 
stopped  when  success  had  probably  but  not  certainly  been 
achieved;  the  estimated  width  of  the  structure  was  thus  thirty- 
two  feet.  Its  shape  was  probably  semi-circular  but  again  the  time 
and  labour  required  in  removing  the  eight  to  ten  feet  of  soil  and 
debris  which  everywhere  overlay  the  footings  were  not  available 
in  the  last  few  days  of  the  excavation. 

In  the  area  excavated  no  parts  of  the  bastion  were  found 
in  situ  above  the  footings,  and  it  was  at  first  thought  possible 
that  it  had  never  been  built  beyond  this  stage.  Three  facts  how- 
ever make  this  very  improbable.  First,  it  was  observed  that, 
though  its  masonry  must  have  been  built  against  and  afterwards 
stripped  from  the  main  wall  without  any  noticeable  damage  to 
the  latter,  yet  there  were  traces  here  and  there  on  its  surface  of 
a slurry  of  mortar  most  easily  explicable  as  the  result  of  the 
abutment  of  another  building,  and  these  traces,  though  they  did 
not  end  in  a straight  line,  were  not  seen  beyond  the  point  at  which 
the  bastion  footings  stopped.  Secondly,  the  stone  robbers’  debris 
above  and  around  the  bastion  contained  a good  many  broken 
pieces  of  millstone  grit,  limestone,  and  yellow  sandstone,  in 
addition  to  the  red  sandstone  which  alone  is  used  in  the  building 
of  the  wall  itself:  their  presence  is  only  explicable  if  the  bastion 
was  built  of  these  materials  and  it  is  worth  noticing  that  the 
same  phenomenon  was  also  observed  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
angle  bastion.  There  two  blocks  of  yellow  sandstone  were  actually 
found  in  place  on  the  footings,  while  Mr.  Barber  records  a block 
of  millstone  grit  remaining  in  place  on  the  footings  of  the  north- 
east angle  bastion.  Thirdly,  the  deposit  of  burnt  debris  against 
the  outer  face  of  the  wall  already  recorded  in  Section  I (see  p.  17) 
would  have  accumulated  more  readily  in  the  angle  between  a 
bastion  and  the  wall  than  along  a plain  stretch  of  wall,  and  in  fact 
no  trace  of  such  a deposit  occurred  on  the  stretch  of  wall  that 
would  have  been  covered  by  the  bastion.  Although  we  are  thus 
bound  to  agree  that  the  bastion  was  really  built,  a curious  piece 
of  evidence  turned  up  to  suggest  that  it  had  already  been  re- 
moved at  a fairly  early  date.  Immediately  overlying  the  footings 
on  the  north  side  were  found  some  human  remains  including 
considerable  parts  of  a skull  and  legbones,  evidently  from  a 



Fig.  10. 

Coarse  Pottery  (£)- — Occupation  over  rampart  bank. 


disturbed  burial,  and  with  them  was  a deposit  of  red-deer  antlers. 
Although  Knaresborough  forest  is  not  far  away  it  is  on  the  whole 
improbable  that  red  deer  were  wandering  near  the  ruins  of  Isurium 
after  the  earlier  part  of  the  Middle  Ages,  nor  is  a burial  in  such  a 
position  likely  to  be  very  recent:  perhaps  a late  Saxon  context 
for  this  curious  interment  is  more  probable  than  any  other:  but 
whenever  it  was  made  there  was  no  more  of  the  bastion  standing 
than  there  is  now. 

Rather  more  can  be  said  of  the  date  of  its  building  owing 
to  the  fortunate  fact  that  the  ditch,  if  it  was  a ditch,  through 
which  its  footings  were  dug,  had  been  used  as  a rubbish  tip  and 
contained  a very  large  quantity  of  pottery.  The  footings  had 
moreover  been  laid  not  in  a vertical  sided  trench  but  in  one  which 
shelved  back  at  a considerable  angle,1  so  that  though  they  ex- 
tended at  the  top  to  within  three  feet  of  the  outer  lip  of  the  ditch, 
a much  greater  amount  of  its  filling  remained  undisturbed  beneath 
them  than  there  was  any  reason  at  first  to  hope.  It  was  possible 
to  see  that  the  contents  of  the  ditch  had  been  stratified  in  an 
interesting  way.  Above  a level  of  dirty  sand  representing  the 
considerable  primary  silting  natural  in  very  soft  material,  there 
was  a layer  of  burnt  sand  containing  pottery,  bones,  wall-plaster, 
tiles,  tesserae  and  other  debris  from  destroyed  buildings.  This  was 
capped  by  a level  of  dark  humus,  as  though  rank  grass  and 
vegetation  had  grown  over  the  damp  half-filled  ditch.  Above  this 
again  was  another  level  of  burnt  debris  with  pottery  similar  to 
the  previous  one  which  must  have  completely  filled  the  ditch. 
Above  this  again  a regular  occupation  level  extended  over  the 
filling  up  to  the  footings  of  the  bastion,  and  westwards  down  the 
trench.  This  also  contained  a quantity  of  pottery,  and  a hearth 
or  cooking-hole  of  clay  roughly  lined  with  large  cobbles  was 
found  associated  with  it  some  nine  feet  west  of  the  bastion.  This 
level  was  evidently  accumulating  before  the  bastion  was  built  for 
it  was  overlaid  close  to  the  footings  by  heaps  containing  mixed 
material  of  rather  earlier  date  similar  to  the  rubbish  levels  in  the 
ditch;  this  material  had  evidently  been  thrown  out  from  the  ditch 
in  laying  the  bastion  footings;  so  that  the  stratification  at  this 
point  appeared  to  be  inverted. 

These  deposits  all  contained  considerable  quantities  of 
pottery,  especially  the  burnt  levels  in  the  ditch  which  in  places 
were  composed  of  little  else.  Although  it  was  tempting  to  guess 
that  the  layer  of  humus  between  the  two  burnt  levels  there 
indicated  a considerable  lapse  of  time,  and  might  even  serve  to 
relate  the  rubbish  above  and  below  it  to  events  of  major  im- 
portance in  the  town's  later  history,  the  contents  of  the  two 
levels  and  of  the  occupation  over  the  ditch  turn  out  to  be  closely 
related.  The  two  deposits  differed  less  in  the  number  of  types 

1 Footings  of  this  same  shelving  type  were  found  by  Mr.  Barber  at 
the  N.E.  angle  bastion.  This  constitutes  a very  strong  presumption  that 
the  bastions  belong  to  the  same  period. 



Ftg.  11. 

Coarse  Pottery  (|).  Deposit  in  ditch  under  lateral  bastion  (both  levels). 


represented  than  in  the  proportion  in  which  these  occurred  in 
each.  Thus  the  lower  burnt  level  had  a good  deal  more  Samian 
in  it  than  the  other,  mostly  Antonine  and  later  in  date,  including 
parts  of  forms  31,  33,  37,  and  38,  all  noticeably  worn.  The  coarse 
pottery  from  all  the  levels  is  illustrated  on  figs.  11-12  and  discussed 
p.  36.  Although  many  of  the  forms  from  the  lower  level  have 
an  earlier  look  than  those  from  the  upper,  the  mortaria  serve  to 
bring  the  two  closer  together,  for  the  lower  contained  four  (fig. 
27,  1,  3,  4,  8)  which  can  hardly  be  earlier  than  the  late  third 
century  and  would  be  more  easily  placed  in  the  fourth.  The  same 
is  also  true  of  the  buff  mortarium  with  red  painted  decoration 
(fig.  12,  1)  which  was  found  right  under  the  bastion  footings  near 
the  inner  side  of  the  ditch,  and  was  probably  lost  during  the 
trenching  for  the  footings  themselves. 

Fig.  12. 

Section  III  1935.  Deposit  in  ditch  under  lateral  bastion,  (upper  levels) 

(Scale  = J). 

In  face  of  this  mass  of  evidence  it  is  difficult  to  place  the 
building  of  the  bastion  earlier  than  the  second  quarter  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  the  contents  of  the  occupation  level  covering 
the  filled  ditch  beneath  it  fully  confirm  this  date,  for  while  this 



level  was  less  certainly  sealed  than  the  material  under  the  footings, 
it  did  mostly  underlie  the  heaps  which  were  thrown  out  of  the 
ditch  by  the  diggers  of  the  trench  for  the  footings.  A tabular 
comparison  of  the  contents  of  this  level  with  the  contents  of  the 
overlying  heaps  may  serve  to  bring  out  the  increasing  pre- 
ponderance of  certainly  fourth  century  types  in  the  lower  but 

later  stratum. 

Material  thrown  out  of  the  ditch 

Building  level  of  bastion 

Bowls,  roll  rim 



,,  flat  topped  rim 



,,  flanged 



Jars,  rectangular  outbent  rim 



,,  broad  bevelled  type 



Thus  the  flanged  bowls,  and  jars  with  bevelled  rims,  are  replacing 
the  long-lived  roll  rim  bowls,  while  the  jars  with  rectangular 
outbent  rims,  and  the  flat  topped  rim  bowls  remain  more  or  less 
constant  in  the  two  periods.  It  may  be  noticed  that  along  with 
a mass  of  earlier  types  only  one  jar  rim  of  the  broad  bevelled 
type  occurred  in  the  whole  deposit  from  the  ditch  itself:  it  would 
seem  that  this  type,  which  belongs  to  the  early  fourth  century, 
had  not  long  been  in  fashion  when  the  bastion  was  built. 

Section  IV.  (Fig.  13)  can  be  briefly  described  since  in  all 
essential  features  it  confirmed  the  evidence  for  the  date  and 
construction  of  the  wall  already  discussed  in  detail  under  Section 
III.  It  was  cut  in  the  first  instance  merely  to  locate  the  wall  and 
was  not  extended  to  cover  the  ditch,  though  the  opportunity 
was  taken  to  investigate  further  the  relation  of  the  wall  to  the 
clay  bank  behind  it. 

It  was  found  that  the  whole  superstructure  of  the  wall  had 
here  been  robbed  away,  leaving  only  the  clay  and  cobble  footings. 
These  were  fourteen  and  a half  feet  wide  and  four  feet  deep, 
being  laid  through  a stratum  of  dirty  sand;  they  rested  on  natural 
sand  at  a depth  of  eight  and  a half  feet  below  the  modern  surface. 
Here  too  the  footings  must  have  been  considerably  wider  than 
the  wall  built  on  them,  and  covering  the  back  part  of  them  was 
a loose  heap  eighteen  inches  high  of  blocks  and  chunks  of  red 
sandstone  evidently  left  over  by  the  masons  in  building  the  wall 
and  stacked  against  the  back  of  it  on  the  footings.  Before  they 
could  be  removed  however  the  party  laying  the  clay  bank  arrived 
and  deposited  clay  all  over  them,  incorporating  the  heap  in  the 
rampart,  so  that  when  the  wall  was  robbed  in  recent  times  it 
escaped  notice  being  entirely  covered  by  the  clay  bank.  For 
seven  feet  behind  the  footings  a diminishing  trail  of  sandstone 
chips  led  eastwards  from  this  heap  under  the  clay  bank  and 
served  to  demarcate  it  from  the  underlying  dirty  sand,  which 
rose  steadily  behind  the  wall.  The  upper  part  of  the  clay  bank 
had  all  been  worn  away  for  the  first  seventeen  feet  from  the  wall, 
but  beyond  this  point  the  slope  of  the  original  surface  remained 






Fig.  13.  Sections  IV  and  V,  1935. 


with  a thick  occupation  level  on  it  containing,  as  in  Section  III, 
a lot  of  pottery  running  from  the  mid-second  to  the  fourth  century. 
If  the  line  of  the  sloping  surface  of  the  bank  were  prolonged  to  the 
wall  at  the  same  angle  the  clay  rampart  would  here  have  been 
originally  between  seven  and  eight  feet  thick  above  the  wall 
footings,  a figure  very  similar  to  that  still  preserved  in  Section  III, 
though  there  the  surface  must  originally  have  been  somewhat 

The  dating  evidence  from  this  section  tallied  closely  with 
that  from  Section  III.  From  the  dirty  sand  through  which  the 
wall  footings  were  laid  came  parts  of  at  least  4 cups  of  Samian 
form  27,  and  a latticed  grey  bowl;  a denarius  of  Vespasian  (cos 
iiii,  72  A.D.)  in  good  condition  was  found  during  filling-in 
embedded  in  dirty  sand  on  the  part  of  the  tip  thrown  out  from 
the  same  pre-wall  deposit.  In  the  stone  heap  on  the  footings 
under  the  clay  bank  was  the  rim  of  a Hadrianic  cup  of  form  33, 
and  in  the  clay  bank  itself  were  parts  of  two  or  three  dishes  of 
form  18,  of  at  least  three  cups  of  form  27,  a delicate  Flavian 
cup  of  form  35  with  criss-cross  graffiti  (fig.  8,  4)  the  flange  of  a 
bowl  of  form  38  (O  & P PI.  lxxii,  2,  Trajan-Antonine)  part  of 
two  cups  of  form  33,  one  of  early  second  century  type,  the  other 
Hadrian-Antonine,  and  part  of  a 37,  probably  of  Antonine  date. 
Among  the  coarse  pottery  were  the  rims  of  a pink  beaker  and 
of  a grey  trellised  bowl.  This  suggests,  as  in  Section  III,  that 
the  defences  cannot  be  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  second 

Section  V and  the  Angle  Bastion. 

North  of  the  hedge  separating  O.S.  57  from  44  the  outer 
face  of  the  wall  footings  was  picked  up  in  a narrow  trench  and 
followed  round  the  north  west  angle  of  the  town  as  shown  in 
fig.  3.  It  was  found  that  the  inner  face  of  another  clay  and  cobble 
footing  diverged  from  the  curve  of  the  town  wall  close  to  the 
hedge  and  continued  northwards  approximately  on  the  line 
previously  followed  by  the  town  wall.  The  outer  face  of  the 
footing  was  found  ten  feet  further  west,  and  this  ran  at  first  north 
and  then  curved  eastwards  until  it  was  cut  by  the  pipe  line  trench 
(see  p.  17)  which  had  shaved  off  the  northern  part  of  its  circuit. 
Its  point  of  junction  with  the  main  wall  north-east  of  the  angle 
was  however  found  and  also  the  curving  inner  face  of  the  footings 
on  the  north  side  which  was  not  built  in  a straight  line  as  was  the 
stretch  first  discovered,  where  it  diverged  from  the  main  wall  by 
the  hedge.  Time  did  not  permit  the  tracing  of  the  whole  inner 
face  of  the  footings  and  the  point  of  junction  between  the  straight 
and  curved  section  was  not  found. 

The  structure  thus  outlined  had  evidently  been  a bastion  of 
semi-elliptical  form  and  solid  construction  masking  the  whole 
angle  of  the  original  wall.  It  was  sixty-four  feet  wide  and  its 
maximum  projection  from  the  wall  was  a little  over  thirty  feet; 



the  footings  varied  from  eight  to  sixteen  feet  in  thickness.  No 
part  of  its  walls  was  preserved  above  the  footings  except  for  two 
blocks  of  yellow  sandstone,  one  on  the  outer  face  near  the  hedge, 
the  other  on  the  inner  face  in  the  northern  part:  both  were  the 
same  size,  being  two  feet  eight  inches  in  length,  one  foot  seven 
inches  in  width  and  eleven  inches  in  height.  The  whole  area 
around  and  over  the  bastion  had  been  extensively  disturbed  by 
stone-robbers  some  of  whose  trenches  had  cut  through  the  cobble 
footings  both  of  the  bastion  and  the  wall.  The  ground  was  full  of 
fragments  of  the  yellow  sandstone,  limestone  and  millstone  grit  of 
which  the  bastion  had  been  built,  but  contained  very  little  pottery 
or  other  material  evidence  of  occupation. 

Section  V was  laid  out  across  the  wall  and  bastion  footings 
from  the  clay  bank  behind  the  former  to  the  outer  edge  of  the 
latter.  It  was  forty-eight  feet  long  and  two  feet  nine  inches  wide. 
The  inner  part  of  this  section  was  carried  down  to  the  natural 
sand,  but  time  was  not  available  for  its  completion  beyond  the 
outer  edge  of  the  bastion,  nor  for  the  extremely  laborious  task  of 
cutting  through  its  clay  and  cobble  footings  to  test  their  depth 
and  to  verify  the  existence  of  the  hypothetical  ditch  belonging  to 
the  town  wall  which  may  underlie  them.  It  is  very  desirable  that 
further  work  should  be  done  here  both  to  determine  the  date  of 
the  bastion  and  to  provide  if  possible  confirmatory  evidence  to 
that  obtained  in  Section  III  for  the  course  and  character  of  the 
ditch.  At  present  the  only  evidence  of  value  bearing  on  the  date 
of  the  bastion  is  derived  from  a small  pit  dug  against  the  outer 
edge  of  its  footings  close  to  the  hedge:  this  produced  in  odd 
association  with  a piece  of  a ITadrianic  37  in  the  style  of  Albucius 

Pottery  from  foundation  trench  of  Angle-Bastion. 

(fig.  8,  3:  14,  1),  parts  of  two  grey  flanged  bowls  of  fourth 
century  date  (fig.  14,  2,  3)  which  can  hardly  have  reached  this 
position  after  the  footings  were  laid  and  probably  came  from  its 
foundation  trench. 

In  Section  V not  only  had  all  the  superstructure  of  the  town 
wall  been  robbed  away,  but  only  the  lowest  two  or  three  courses 
of  its  cobble  footings  remained  in  place.  These  rested  on  the 


natural  sand  at  a depth  of  seven  feet  three  inches  from  the  modern 
surface  and  behind  them  was  a deposit  of  dirty  sand  through 
which  they  had  been  laid;  this  was  capped,  as  in  Section  IV,  by  a 
layer  of  red  sandstone  chips  from  the  building  level  of  the  wall, 
and  this  in  turn  by  three  feet  of  the  clay  bank  which  was  still  in 
place.  Nothing  was  found  here  except  the  rim  of  a cup  of  form  33 
of  the  earliest  type,  probably  Trajan-Hadrian  in  date,  which  came 
from  the  mason’s  level  under  the  clay  bank,  a piece  of  evidence 
which  coheres  satisfactorily  with  that  from  Sections  III  and  IV. 
It  may  be  noted  at  this  point  that  there  was  nothing  in  Section  V 
to  suggest  that  there  had  ever  been  an  internal  tower  behind  the 
wall  at  this  corner  of  the  town,  and  a trench  ten  feet  long  which 
was  cut  running  N.E.  from  the  end  of  the  section  to  pursue  the 
search  for  such  an  angle  tower  encountered  nothing  but  the 
undisturbed  clay  of  the  bank  throughout  its  course;  if  there  was 
an  internal  angle-tower  here,  similar  to  that  found  at  the  S.E. 
angle  in  1937,  it  was  either  placed  eccentrically,  or  was  filled  with 
clay  like  that  used  in  the  bank,  and  so  escaped  detection. 

Between  the  front  of  the  wall  and  the  back  of  the  bastion 
the  natural  sand  was  reached  at  a depth  of  some  five  to  six  feet; 
close  behind  the  bastion  footings  it  was  cut  by  a straight-sided 
flat-bottomed  slot  18  ins.  wide1  and  the  same  deep,  which  crossed 
the  section  obliquely  in  a north-easterly  direction;  this  slot,  which 
there  was  no  time  to  pursue  either  way,  presumably  held  a sleeper- 
beam  belonging  to  some  timber  building  of  the  first  Roman 
occupation.  The  dirty  soil  of  its  filling  contained  only  an  in- 
determinate scrap  of  Samian  and  a piece  of  pink  jugware  of 
Flavian  character,  and  there  was  no  floor  or  other  definite  occupa- 
tion level  associated  with  it.  The  timber  structure  must  in  any 
case  have  been  dismantled  before  the  deposition  of  the  dirty  sand 
which  here,  as  we  have  seen,  everywhere  covers  the  site,  to  a 
depth  of  some  three  feet,  and  through  which  the  footings  of  the 
wall  were  subsequently  laid.  Its  period  of  use  probably  began 
about  the  same  time  as  that  of  the  timber  building  in  the  sandpit 
in  Section  III  and  may  have  been  even  more  shortlived.  On  top 
of  the  dirty  sand,  which  contained  little  of  interest  save  a grey 
jar  rim  with  wavy  line  on  the  neck  of  the  type  of  fig.  7,  6,  was 
a scatter  of  red  sandstone  chips  against  the  robbed  face  of  the 
wall  indicating  the  mason’s  level  for  its  building,  and  above  this 
a burnt  level  which  must  have  accumulated  against  the  wall  by 
the  time  the  bastion  was  built,  for  it  merged  northwestwards  into 
a level  containing  a good  many  yellow  sandstone  chips  evidently 
from  the  building  level  of  the  bastion.  Very  little  unfortunately 
was  found  in  either  part  of  this  accumulation,  and  no  regular 
occupation  level  or  floor  existed  inside  the  bastion,  the  building 
level  being  immediately  overlaid  by  a mass  of  debris  composed 
mainly  of  red  sandstone  from  the  wall  which  merged  at  both  ends 

1 The  greater  width  of  the  slot  shown  on  fig.  13  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
Section  V crossed  it  obliquely. 



into  the  robber  trenches  overlying  the  wall  and  bastion  footings 
respectively.  Owing  to  the  slope  of  the  ground  the  building  level 
of  the  inside  of  the  bastion  was  apparently  some  three  feet  higher 
than  that  of  the  outer  face;  it  has  already  been  mentioned  that 
the  depth  of  the  footings  and  the  nature  of  the  underlying  deposits 
still  await  investigation. 

The  chronological  information  derived  from  the  excavations 
of  1934  and  1935  may  be  tentatively  summarized  as  follows. 
Occupation  of  the  Agricolan  period  in  this  part  of  the  later  town 
was  of  an  unsystematic  character,  and  was  associated,  in  the 
sandpit  and  outside  the  N.W.  angle,  with  timber  buildings.  At 
some  date  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  perhaps  im- 
mediately before  the  building  of  the  wall,  an  attempt  was  made 
to  raise  the  level  of  much  of  this  area  by  the  dumping  of  large 
quantities  of  dirty  sand.  The  building  of  the  wall  and  layout  of 
the  defences  took  place  in  the  Antonine  period,  and  involved 
considerable  modifications  of  the  previous  topography,  including 
the  filling  of  a sandpit  on  the  line  chosen  for  the  wall.  Sub- 
sequently further  raising  of  the  ground  level  inside  the  defences 
was  apparently  undertaken  perhaps  because  the  construction  of 
the  wall  blocked  the  natural  drainage  of  the  slope  and  turned 
the  region  inside  the  wall  into  a swamp.  Large  quantities  of 
burnt  refuse  accumulated  on  the  bank  behind  the  wall  between 
the  Antonine  period  and  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  and 
rough  buildings  were  put  up  there.  Similar  material  was  dumped 
into  and  filled  the  ditch  outside  the  wall,  partly  in  the  course  of 
a tidying  up  of  the  interior.  This  shortly  preceded  the  addition 
of  a solid  bastion  to  the  outer  face  of  the  wall  at  a date  in  the 
second  quarter  of  the  fourth  century.  A very  large  bastion  was 
also  built,  probably  but  not  certainly  at  the  same  period,  outside 
the  N.W.  angle,  and  it  might  be  suggested  that  this  bastion  with 
its  poor  lateral  command  of  the  adjacent  stretches  of  wall  may 
lie  typologically  between  early  fourth  century  structures  like  the 
Multangular  Tower  at  York,  which  it  resembles  in  size  but  not 
in  shape  or  construction,  and  the  little  bastions  at  the  angles  of 
the  late  fourth  century  signal  stations  which  have  no  lateral 
command  at  all.  Of  the  end  of  the  occupation  little  can  be  said, 
except  that  typical  Signal  Station  pottery  hardly  occurred  in  the 
excavations,  though  it  is  represented  in  the  collections  in  the 
Aldborough  Museum.  There  is  some  evidence  that  the  fourth 
century  bastions  were  deliberately  dismantled  at  some  date  after 
Roman  times  but  before  the  walls  themselves  had  been  seriously 
attacked  by  stone-robbers. 


POTTERY,  1934-5. 

Fig.  7.  Coarse  Pottery  from  pre-wall  levels. 

1.  Cook-pot,  ornamented  with  burnished  lattice  pattern  on  unpolished 
body:  gritty  black  ware. 

Section  III : from  dirty  sand  above  the  sandpit  floor,  below  the  deliberate 
filling  of  the  pit. 

2.  Upper  part  of  jar  (perhaps  rusticated):  thin  gritty  grey  ware  with  red 

Section  III:  from  filling  of  a post-hole  in  the  sandpit  floor. 

3.  Small  beaker:  hard  light  grey  ware. 

Section  III : from  old  surface  under  the  rampart  bank  at  the  top  of  the 
sandpit  face. 

4.  Upper  part  of  bowl:  hard  light  grey  ware. 

Section  III : from  same  deposit  as  3,  5 and  10. 

5.  Rim  of  reeded-rim  bowl:  light  red  ware,  traces  of  mica,  much  burnt. 
Section  III : from  same  deposit  as  3,  4 and  10. 

6.  Upper  part  of  cook-pot,  ornamented  with  burnished  lattice  pattern  on 
body,  and  wavy  line  on  neck:  dark  grey  ware,  burnished  inside  rim 
and  on  shoulder. 

Section  III : west  end,  from  old  surface  continuous  with  sandpit  floor. 
Several  other  sherds  from  vessels  of  this  type  occurred  in  immediately 
pre-wall  deposits. 

7.  Upper  part  of  reeded-rim  bowl  with  groove  at  carination:  hard  grey 

Section  III:  from  filling  of  a post-hole  in  the  sand-pit  floor. 

8.  Rim  of  mortarium:  orange-pink  ware  with  black  and  white  grits. 
Section  III:  from  the  bottom  of  the  sandy  filling  above  the  sandpit  face. 

9.  [undescribed]. 

10.  Body  of  carinated  bowl,  ornamented  with  horizontal  grooves  and 
vertical  burnished  lines:  hard  light  grey  ware. 

Section  III : from  same  deposit  as  3,  4 and  5. 

1 1 . Dish  with  burnished  lattice  pattern  on  the  sides  and  squiggles  on  the 
base:  black  ware,  burnished  surface. 

Section  III : from  same  deposit  as  6 and  12. 

12.  Part  of  rim  and  base-angle  of  hand-made  jar:  red/black  gritty  ware. 
Section  III : from  same  deposit  as  6 and  11. 

Fig.  10.  Coarse  Pottery  from  rubbish  level  overlying  the  rampart 


All  but  one  of  the  pieces  illustrated  come  from  the  rubbish  levels  which 
accumulated  on  top  of  the  rampart  bank:  1-5  and  7-15  are  from  Section  III, 
16-21  from  Section  IV.  6 came  from  a pit  dug  into  the  top  of  the  bank 
from  this  level.  The  chronological  range  of  the  material  is  thus  wide,  and 
may  cover  the  whole  period  from  mid-second  to  mid-fourth  century. 

1.  Upper  part  of  jar  with  upright  collared  rim:  hard  light  blue-grey 
ware  with  dark  core. 

2-6.  Rims  of  jars  in  hard,  gritty,  blue-grey  ware. 

7.  Upper  part  of  small  beaker,  with  spreading  rim:  fine  light  grey  ware 
with  black  slip  and  light  polish. 

8,  9.  Flanged  and  carinated  bowls:  hard  pink  ware  with  blue  core. 

10.  Hammer-head  mortarium:  white  Ware  with  red  and  black  grits. 

11.  Small  mortarium:  white  ware  with  grey  core  and  fine  red  and  black 

12.  Upper  part  of  bowl:  hard  light  grey  ware,  burnished. 

13.  14.  Straight-sided  dishes,  ornamented  with  random  burnished  lines; 

black,  gritty  ware,  burnished. 

15.  Small  Rhenish  cup,  copy  of  Ritterling  Form  8:  Fine  red  ware  with 
brilliant,  black  metallic  lustre  surface. 

16.  Broad-bevelled  rim  of  large  jar:  black,  calcite-gritted  ware. 

17.  18.  Rims  of  jars:  hard,  light  grey,  gritty  ware. 


19.  Upper  part  of  hand-made  cookpot:  calcite-gritted  ware.  This  is 
the  only  example  of  its  type  from  this  deposit. 

20.  Frilled  rim  and  neck  of  pitcher:  hard,  dark  grey,  gritty  ware, 
burnished  inside  the  rim. 

21.  Conical  cup  with  slightly  concave  sides,  copy  of  Drag.  Form  33. 
Hard  light-grey  ware  with  black  burnish. 

Note  on  Figs.  11,  12  and  27.  Pottery  from  the  Deposit  underlying 
the  Lateral  Bastion. 

As  stated  above,  the  pottery  from  this  very  considerable  deposit  was 
not  all  from  one  horizon  although  it  did  not  widely  differ  in  date  throughout 
its  range.  The  stratification  was  not  at  first  clear,  so  that  the  pottery  is 
arranged  in  three  groups;  pottery  that  can  be  assigned  to  one  of  the  two 
distinct  levels  (Figs.  12  and  27)  and  pottery  from  the  deposit  as  a whole, 
Fig.  11. 

The  distinct  groups  come  from  two  layers  of  burnt  sand  separated  by 
humus,  the  upper  layer  shading  off  into  the  occupation  level  at  the  time 
of  the  building  of  the  bastion.  Beyond  the  bastion  there  is  also  material 
from  the  same  two  layers  reversed,  for  the  lower  was  thrown  out  by  the 
bastion-builders  in  digging  the  trench  for  the  bastion  footings,  and  landed 
on  top  of  the  occupation  associated  with  the  upper  layer. 

The  associated  Samian  is  discussed  in  detail  elsewhere  (Fig.  8) : here  it 
may  be  said  that  the  quantity  of  Antonine  Samian  present  in  these  com- 
paratively late  levels  seems  to  be  characteristic  of  the  whole  town,  and  that 
three  fragments  of  third  century  Samian  help  to  bring  it  more  into  line 
with  the  date  of  the  coarse  pottery. 

Fig.  11.  Coarse  pottery  from  the  Town  ditch  under  the  lateral 
bastion  in  Section  III  (both  levels)  and  from  the  Angle  bastion  (26). 

1,  2,  3,  5,  7.  Rims  of  mortaria,  2 and  5 being  hammer  heads:  creamy 
white  ware  with  black  grits. 

6.  Hammer  head  mortarium:  coarse  sandy  red  ware  with  little  grit. 

4.  Small  lid:  coarse  gritty  pink  ware  with  blue  core:  much  worn  and 


8.  Small  bowl  of  mortarium  form,  copy  of  Curie  Form  1 1 : creamy 
white  ware,  with  red  painted  leaves  on  the  flanged  rim. 

9.  Base  of  jar  with  graffito  “S"  outside:  grey  ware. 

10-21.  Dishes  and  bowls  of  various  forms,  some  (14,  15,  18)  decorated 
with  random  burnished  lines,  but  no  true  trellis  pattern. 

11,  light  red  ware,  surface  mica-dusted,  with  blue  core. 

12,  15.  black  burnished  ware. 

13,  14,  16,  19,  20,  21.  hard  light  grey  ware,  burnished. 

22.  Rim  of  tall  pitcher:  hard  light  grey  ware. 

23-25,  27,  28,  30-35.  Jars  and  cook-pots  of  various  forms,  some  (23,  27,  28, 
34,  35)  decorated  with  intersecting  diagonal  burnished  lines  forming 
various  types  of  trellis  pattern. 

23.  hard,  light  grey  ware,  sooted  surface. 

27,  28,  34,  35.  hard  grey  ware,  with  black  polish. 

24.  30-33.  sandy  or  gritty  ware,  grey/black  surface. 

25.  blue-grey  ware  with  small  white  grits. 

30.  Light  grey  to  black  surface,  with  reddish  core. 

29.  Upper  part  of  a bowl,  with  heavy  outbent  rim:  red  ware. 

In  addition  to  the  above  types,  some  of  which  occurred  in  quantity, 
the  deposit  contained  copies  of  Drag.  Form  33  in  hard  grey  ware,  copies  of 
Drag.  Form  38  in  hard  light  red  ware  with  blue  core  and  traces  of  slip,  and 
numerous  colour-coated  shards  from  Castor  ware  folded  beakers  and  hunt 
cups,  with  white  barbotine  decoration. 

26.  Rim  of  jar  with  swollen  outbent  rim:  grey/black  ware.  From  the 
Angle-bastion:  unstratified  but  with  other  fourth-century  shards. 


Fig.  12.  Coarse  pottery  from  the  Town  Ditch  under  the  lateral 
bastion  in  Section  III:  upper  levels. 

The  pieces  illustrated  include  part  of  the  rim  of  a buff  mortarium 
decorated  with  a zigzag  line  and  dots  in  red  paint  (1),  a grey  folded  beaker  (8), 
and  two  small  beakers  (6,  10),  a flanged  pie  dish  in  grey  ware  (2),  and  the 
spreading  rim  of  a grey  jar  of  fourth-century  type  (9). 

Fig.  27.  Coarse  pottery  from  the  Town  Ditch  under  the  lateral 
bastion  in  Section  III:  lower  levels. 

1-3,  5,  6,  8.  Rims  of  mortaria:  cream  or  buff  ware  with  red  or  black  grits. 
4.  Upper  part  of  small  beaker:  grey  ware. 

7.  Frilled  rim  of  conical  cup:  pink  ware. 

9-12,  15.  Rims  of  cook-pots:  hard  gritty  grey  ware,  15  being  burnished 
on  the  inside  of  the  neck. 

13,  14.  Pie  dishes:  hard  light  grey  ware:  13  is  ornamented  with  two 
intersecting  wavy  burnished  lines. 


(Note:  the  comments  between  inverted  commas  are  those  of  the  late  Dr. 

F.  Oswald). 

Fig.  8. 

Section  III,  dirty  sand  above  the  occupation  on  the  floor  of  the  sandpit  and 
below  its  deliberate  filling. 

No.  1.  Good,  dark  glaze.  "This  piece  with  a bestiarius  (Dech.  634)  facing 
a lion,  over  conventional  grass  tuft  is  identical  with  the  representation  on 
a Form  29  from  Rottweil,  stamped  OF  PUDENT.  It  is  a late  29  with  the 
carinated  moulding  flattened  out  and  could  be  of  Domitianic  age.  The 
work  of  Pudens  of  La  Graufesenque  is  related  to  that  of  Biragillus  and 
Mercator  and  he  may  have  worked  also  at  Banassac." 

Section  III  from  the  building  level  of  the  wall. 

No.  2.  "Indeterminate  fragment  of  37,  probably  Hadrian-Antonine  ( c . A.D. 

Section  V , against  the  outer  edge  of  the  footings  of  the  angle  bastion. 

No.  3.  Light,  good  glaze,  much  worn.  “37  in  style  of  Albucius,  of  whom  the 
bead  row  is  characteristic.  The  figure  is  a Hercules  (Oswald  779,  Dech. 
390).  Trace  of  medallion  in  the  next  panel.  Lezoux  ware.  Hadrianic  (c.  A.D. 

Section  IV  in  clay  bank. 

No.  4.  Light,  fine  glaze  and  paste,  with  many  graffiti-? XXX.  "Form  35, 
probably  Flavian." 

No.  5.  "Form  37,  scroll,  probably  Antonine." 

Section  III  in  clay  bank. 

No.  6.  Light  glaze,  "37  probably  of  Trajanic  date  (A.D.  100-120),  but  the 
figure  is  too  much  damaged  to  identify.  Probably  Lezoux  ware". 

No.  7.  "Piece  of  37  with  Venus  by  a column  (Oswald  322),  within  a 
medallion.  This  is  probably  by  Cinnamus  and  of  Antonine  date  ( c . A.D. 

Section  III  occupation  over  clay  bank. 

No.  8.  38,  considerably  abraded;  the  stamp  has  been  destroyed.  Under 

the  base,  remains  of  graffito  "P".  "Probably  Antonine  c.  A.D.  140-160 
and  probably  Lezoux  ware.” 

No.  9.  “Base  of  33  with  stamp  CARATILLI,  Caratillus  of  Lezoux,  Antonine 
(A.D.  140-150,  this  stamp)."  Under  the  base,  graffito  VIC(T). 



No.  10.  Light  glaze,  rather  worn.  37.  “Two  gladiators  (Dech.  616  and  615) 
facing  each  other.  These  occur  on  a small  37  at  Rouen  with  the  stamp 
LASTVCA  F retro,  and  this  is  perhaps  the  work  of  this  potter  or  a closely 
allied  one.  Probably  Hadrianic  (A.D.  120-130).’’ 

No.  11.  Light  glaze.  37.  “Venus  by  column  (Oswald  322)  with  owl  (as  on 
Newstead  Cinnamus  bowl)  within  medallion,  enclosed  by  scroll.  Typically 
the  work  of  Cinnamus.  Antonine  (A.D.  140-150).’’ 

No.  12.  “Stamp  CELSIANI  on  33,  the  same  stamp  with  the  L thus 
occurs  on  a 33  at  Richborough.  Celsianus  of  Lezoux,  Hadrian-Antonine. 
(This  stamp  is  probably  c.  A.D.  130-140).’’ 

No.  13.  “37.  Ovolo  of  Paternus;  bird  on  tripod  ornament  (Dech.  1068) 

which  is  used  by  Paternus.  This  is  probably  his  work.  (Antonine,  A.D. 

No.  14.  Fragments  of  a 38  (base  only  shown),  with  graffiti  outside  the 

bowl  and  under  the  base.  “Lezoux  and  Antonine;  blurred  stamp, 

RVI.M,  (SERVI.M).’’ 

No.  15.  “37,  good  glaze.  Panels  formed  by  bead  rows.  On  left  Tritoness 
(Oswald  19).  Ovolo  used  by  Paternus,  and  dolphin  to  left  also  used  by  him. 
Tritoness,  dolphin  in  festoon  and  ovolo  occur  on  a 37  from  Wroxeter  signed 
PATERN  FE  retro,  and  this  is  probably  by  Paternus  of  Lezoux:  Antonine 
(A.D.  140-150).’’ 

No.  16.  “Fragments  with  the  large  bead-row  characteristic  of  Doeccus  of 
Lezoux.  Fie  uses  the  same  bird  (37  DOICC  at  Geneva)  and  same  snake- 
like ornament  below  vine-leaf  in  medallion;  GD  on  37  at  York.  Hadrian- 

No.  17.  “37  of  Cinnamus  of  Lezoux.  The  stamp  CINNAMI  OF  is  no  doubt 
a little  earlier  than  the  usual  CINNAMI  retro.,  and  may  be  placed  in  the 
decade  A.D.  130-140.  The  figures  are  Apollo  playing  the  harp  (Oswald  84) 
and  the  mask  of  Pan  which  is  so  common  on  Antonine  bowls.” 

No.  18.  “Vase  with  cut-glass  technique;  Lezoux,  end  of  second  century, 
blackened  by  fire.”  In  addition  there  are  some  tiny  scraps  besides  the  one 

No.  19.  “37,  Rheinzabern  ware.  Style  of  IANVS  (his  rosettes  and  large 

beads,  e.g.  Ludowici,  Rheinzabern  V,  p.  133)  he  uses  the  small  Hercules 
(Oswald  758)  part  of  acanthus  in  the  left  panel  (used  by  IANVS,  Lud. 
Rhein.  V,  p.  144).  Hadrian-Antonine.” 

Section  III  from  the  top  of  the  clay  bank  immediately  behind  the  Town  Wall. 

No.  20.  “Cut  glass  technique  on  vase;  Lezoux,  Second  Century”;  badly 
blackened  by  fire. 


No.  21.  “37.  Marine  horse  to  right  (Oswald  48a)  within  festoon.  Bead  row 
of  oblique  beads.  Probably  by  PATERNVS  of  Lezoux,  Antonine  (A.D. 

No.  22.  “37.  Vine-leaf  within  medallion  and  dolphin  in  the  corner  of  the 
panel;  square  bead  rows.  Lezoux  ware;  Antonine  (A.D.  140-150).” 

Deposit  underlying  the  lateral  bastion. 

No.  23.  “Ovolo  and  oblique  bead-row”,  probably  Antonine. 

No.  24.  “This  is  an  unusual  piece,  for  the  section  shows  that  the  figure  is 
in  pale  yellow  clay  applied  to  the  red  clay  of  the  vessel,  and  hence  this  pot 
belongs  to  the  class  of  vases  with  applied  reliefs.  The  form  of  the  vessel  was 
probably  Dech.  72,  and  the  figure  is  similar  to  the  Vulcan  (Dech.  7,  p.  194) 
seated  on  a rock.  The  seated  animal  with  cloven  hoof  was  probably  either 
a deer  or  a bull.  An  instance  of  such  a vase  occurs  as  near  Aldborough  as 
York.  These  vases  were  made  at  Lezoux  at  the  end  of  the  second  century — 
beginning  of  the  third  century.” 


No.  25.  “37.  Apparently  decoration  in  arcades  but  the  figure  is  too  obscure 
and  blurred  to  identify.  Probably  Hadrian-Antonine,  c.  A.D.  130-140,  and 
Lezoux  ware". 

Fig.  9. 

No.  26.  “Base  of  form  37  with  the  large  round  beads  characteristic  of 
DOECCVS  of  Lezoux,  and  the  narrow  vertical  ornament  occurs  on  a 37 
with  his  large  qD  from  Vichy  (St.  Germain  Museum).  The  common  Pan’s 
mask  often  used  by  Doeccus  (Dech.  675)  and  another  mask  (full-face, 
Dech.  678)  occur  but  are  not  distinctive,  and  the  two  urns  are  unusual.  I 
think  it  is  probably  the  work  of  DOECCVS,  but  rather  late,  c.  A.D.  150.” 
No.  27.  “Form  38  with  stamp  IVSTI.M  (?)  38  IVSTI.M  occurs  in  London 
(London  Museum)  Justus  of  Lezoux.  This  stamp  would  be  Antonine,  A.D. 

Nos.  28  and  29.  “Form  30.  Two  fragments  with  Mask  (?  of  Pan)  with 
small  double-ringed  medallions  in  panels  of  wavy  lines.  Probably  Lezoux 
ware  and  Hadrianic  (A.D.  120-130).” 

No.  30.  “37.  Panels  enclosed  in  bead  rows  with  astragali  at  junctions. 

Figure  of  Venus  on  a mask  (Oswald  305)  probably  the  work  of  DIVIXTVS. 
The  Venus  occurs  on  the  37  DIVIX  already  found  at  Aldborough  and  on 
30  DIVIX  F from  London  (London  Museum)  and  also  from  Colchester. 
He  often  uses  medallions  with  double  ring  and  small  rings  in  the  field. 
Antonine  (A.D.  140-150).” 

No.  31.  Ovolo  with  bead  rim. 

No.  32.  Ovolo  ? Antonine. 

Section  III  upcast  from  ditch. 

No.  33.  “37.  In  the  first  panel,  (marked  by  rhomboidal  beads)  the  base 

of  Pan  playing  pipes  on  a mask  (Oswald  709b)  used  by  Paternus  who  also 
frequently  uses  the  rhomboidal  beads.  In  the  next  panel,  above  the  fasces, 
is  part  of  a group,  not  enough  to  identify.  Probably  by  Paternus  of  Lezoux. 
Antonine  (A.D.  140-150).” 

Section  III  in  an  unsealed  level  on  the  cobble  footings  against  the  outer  face 
of  the  wall. 

No.  34  and  35.  “Indeterminate  pieces  of  37  with  ovolo,  probably  Hadrian- 

No.  36.  “37,  with  indications  of  a festoon,  and  with  the  diagonal  rods  of  a 
bead-row  very  characteristic  of  Paternus  of  Lezoux.  Antonine,  c.  A.D. 

No.  37.  “Fragmentary  figure  of  an  animal,  probably  a deer,  to  right,  above 
a pennate  leaf  in  the  field.  Probably  Lezoux  ware  of  Hadrianic  date  c. 
A.D.  120-130.” 

No.  38.  “37,  with  the  thin  footstand  very  usual  in  Trajanic  bowls,  panels 

formed  by  a fine  bead-row  in  larger  beads.  Rings  in  the  field;  and  apparently 
the  stalk  of  a leaf  rising  out  of  an  astragalus.  Probably  Lezoux  of  Trajanic 
date.  c.  A.D.  115-120.” 































By  K.  A.  Steer  and  Mrs.  A.  M.  H.  Chitty. 

The  main  objective  of  the  excavations  of  1937  was  to  test 
the  commonly  accepted  uniformity  of  the  stone  defences  of  the 
town,  in  the  light  of  the  evidence  as  to  construction  and  date 
recovered  by  Mr.  Myres  at  the  north-west  angle.  To  this  end,  it 
was  decided  to  cut  further  rampart  sections  at  a point  on  the 
perimeter  as  far  removed  as  possible  from  the  excavations  of 
1934-5.  The  site  chosen  was  the  south-east  angle  which  survives 
in  the  form  of  a bold,  curving  mound  in  the  corner  of  a pasture 
field  (O.S.  102)  between  cottage  gardens  (fig.  15).  There  is  no 
record  of  any  previous  examination  of  the  angle  itself,  but  a 
stretch  of  the  east  wall,  said  to  have  been  16  feet  thick,  was 
exposed  a short  distance  to  the  north  of  the  angle  in  the  middle 
of  last  century.1  As  the  dimensions  of  the  mound  suggested  the 
presence  of  both  an  internal  angle-tower,  complementary  to  the 
south-west  angle-tower  uncovered  by  Andrew  Lawson,  and  an 
external  bastion,  the  first  section,  60  feet  in  length  and  6 feet 
wide,  was  designed  to  intersect  both  these  features. 

Section  I (figs.  15  and  16;  pi.  Ia). 

The  Wall 

The  town  wall  was  encountered  at  a depth  of  5 feet  below 
the  surface.  It  was  8 feet  11  inches  thick  at  the  base,  and  con- 
sisted of  a core  of  red  sandstone  rubble  set  in  white  mortar  of 
extreme  hardness  and  faced  with  red  sandstone  ashlar.  Only  two 
courses  of  the  outer  face  and  five  courses  of  the  inner  face  were 
preserved.  The  stones  used  for  the  outer  face  were  neatly  dressed 
and  coursed,  but  the  inner  facings  were  only  roughly  trimmed  and 
no  particular  care  was  taken  to  avoid  straight  joints.  No  reused 
material  was  employed.  A thick  coating  of  mortar  droppings  on 
the  upper  surface  of  the  top  internal  course  indicated  that  the 
wall  had  been  reduced  at  this  height  to  a thickness  of  8 feet: 
this  reduction  was  subsequently  confirmed  immediately  to  the 
south  of  the  angle-tower  where  the  wall  was  still  standing  to  a 
height  of  eight  courses. 

The  alluvial  sand  on  which  the  northern  defences  are  founded 
is  absent  in  the  southern  part  of  the  town,  and  here  the  rock, 
masked  by  a thin  and  variable  covering  of  gravel,  lies  close  to 
the  surface.  Elaborate  foundations  were  therefore  unnecessary, 
and  the  footings  were  in  effect  no  more  than  a levelling  course  of 
clay  and  small  cobbles  1 foot  6 inches  deep.  In  spite  of  minor 
differences  due  to  the  employment  of  different  working  parties, 
the  wall  at  this  point  is  basically  similar  in  construction  to  the 
stretches  of  the  town  wall  previously  uncovered  at  the  north-east 
and  north-west  angles,  and  to  the  fragments  of  the  west  wall 
exposed  by  Mr.  Andrew  Lawson  and  still  visible  in  the  grounds 

1 ES.,  23,  and  pi.  iii. 

Plate  IIa. 

S.E.  angle-tower  from  the  west. 

Plate  IIb. 

S.E.  angle-tower  : interior  view. 


of  Aldborough  Manor.  There  can  thus  be  no  doubt  that  the 
entire  circuit  of  the  stone  defences  is  of  uniform  design  and  date. 

The  Angle-Tower  (fig.  17;  pi.  II). 

As  we  had  anticipated,  Section  I intersected  an  internal 
angle-tower  which  measured  17  feet  by  16  feet  6 inches  along  the 
axes  within  walls  4 feet  6 inches  thick.  Its  side  walls,  like  those 
of  the  east  angle-tower  and  a neighbouring  interval-tower  at 
York,1  were  not  parallel  but  converged  slightly  from  front  to 
back.  The  whole  of  the  interior  of  the  tower  was  cleared  to  the 
original  ground  level,  and  the  north-west  and  south-west  outer 
faces  were  completely  uncovered.  Although  the  north-east  wall 
had  been  robbed  down  to  the  foundations  for  a distance  of  5 feet 
inwards  from  the  town  wall,  the  rest  of  the  structure  was  sur- 
prisingly well-preserved,  standing  from  5 feet  to  8 feet  6 inches 
in  height. 

The  tower  was  designed  and  built  as  an  integral  part  of  the 
stone  defences.  Its  clay  and  cobble  footings  were  identical  with 
those  of  the  town  wall,  and  its  south-west  wall  was  keyed  into 
the  main  wall,  the  junction  being  sealed  at  one  point  by  a layer 
of  mortar  droppings  which  had  lodged  on  the  lower  internal  off- 
set course  of  the  town  wall  during  the  erection  of  the  superstructure. 
Further  evidence  of  uniformity  was  provided  by  the  rampart- 
bank  which  contracted  on  either  side  of  the  tower  to  the  exact 
length  of  the  side  walls,  leaving  the  back  wall  standing  free.  The 
tower  walls  were  faced  throughout  with  red  sandstone  blocks  of 
various  sizes  but  generally  smaller  than  those  employed  in  the 
town  wall.  The  bulk  of  the  stones  were  only  roughly  trimmed, 
and  mortar  was  lavishly  used  to  compensate  for  irregularities  in 
the  coursing:  no  distinction  was  made  in  these  respects  between 
the  exposed  masonry  of  the  back  wall  and  the  masonry  concealed 
by  the  rampart-bank. 

Not  only  had  the  tower  no  entrance  at  ground  level,  but  it 
was  packed  with  sand  to  a height  of  at  least  8 feet — and  pre- 
sumably to  the  height  of  the  parapet-walk.  Although  formal 
proof  that  the  filling  was  contemporary  with  the  tower  could  not 
be  obtained,  this  would  seem  to  be  a reasonable  assumption  since 
the  sand  rested  directly  on  the  masons’  debris  overlying  the 
Roman  turf:  had  it  been  a later  insertion,  one  would  have  ex- 
pected to  find  some  trace  of  an  original  basement  floor  as  at 
York.2  The  purpose  of  this  filling  is  obscure,  unless  it  was  simply 
to  avoid  having  a timber  floor  in  the  upper  storey.  Miller  sug- 
gested that  the  east  angle-tower  at  York,  which  was  converted 
from  a hollow  to  a solid  structure  at  some  time  after  the  Antonine 
period,  served  as  the  platform  for  a ballistarium,  and  that  the 
need  for  consolidation  may  have  arisen  as  a result  of  the  intro- 
duction of  heavier  artillery.3  It  is  difficult  to  believe,  however, 

1 Journal  of  Roman  Studies,  xviii,  fig.  20. 

2 Ibid.,  67. 

3 Ibid.,  68-78. 




O f 


f 0 

fc*(€  in  Jttct  >'  t I ( > t 


— f~ 


— I 


Fig.  17.  Tower  Plans. 


that  the  Aldborough  tower,  with  its  loose  sand  filling  and  free- 
standing back  wall,  would  be  sufficiently  strong  or  resilient  to 
support  a ballist avium:  the  permanent  gun-mountings  at  High 
Rochester,  for  example,  were  composed  of  rubble  set  in  stiff  clay, 
and  were  carefully  sited  to  avoid  the  wall-towers.1  It  is  true  that 
the  back  wall  of  the  Aldborough  tower  had  been  subjected  to 
considerable  stress  which  had  caused  it  to  break  away  from  the 
side  wall  at  the  west  corner  (pi.  IIa),  but  in  the  absence  of  any 
compensatory  buttressing  this  would  inevitably  result  from  the 
combined  pressure  of  the  rampart-bank  and  the  sand  filling. 

The  filling  contained  a fair  amount  of  pottery  and  several 
other  objects,  the  most  notable  of  which  were  an  intaglio  and  an 
elegant  bronze  pin  (fig.  26,  nos.  9 and  14).  No  coins  were  found. 
The  sherds  were  an  unhomogeneous  collection,  useful  only  for 
establishing  a terminus  post  quern  for  the  construction  of  the 
defences:  they  included  the  plain  Samian  forms  18/31,  27,  and  33 
(the  latter  stamped  LVP.  . .);  five  fragments  of  the  decorated 
form  37,  ranging  from  a single  piece  of  Domitianic  date  to  three 
scraps  of  Lezoux  ware  of  the  Antonine  period,  and  the  coarse 
vessels  illustrated  in  fig.  24,  nos.  3 — 8,  none  of  which  need  be 
later  than  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  In  the  masons' 
debris,  however,  sealed  by  the  filling,  there  were  fragments  of 
two  cooking-pots  decorated  with  acute-angled  lattice  pattern. 
One  of  these  (fig.  24,  no.  2),  of  a type  in  common  use  from  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  to  the  early  third  century,  was 
represented  by  only  a single  piece  of  rim  and  upper  wall,  and  as 
it  occurred  at  the  top  of  the  masons’  chippings  it  might  have 
percolated  through  from  the  sand  filling.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  second  pot  (fig.  24,  no.  1)  was  practically  complete  when 
pieced  together,  and  since  the  pieces  were  buried  in  the  heart  of 
the  chippings  it  must  have  been  broken  in  situ  during  the  erection 
of  the  tower.  It  thus  constitutes  the  most  direct  evidence  so  far 
obtained  for  dating  the  defences  as  a whole.  Unfortunately  the 
vessel  is  not  closely  datable.  At  one  time  it  was  considered  to 
be  third  century  type,  in  view  of  its  thin  grey  fabric,  high  collar, 
and  the  absence  of  a wavy  line  round  the  neck;  but  Mr.  J.  P. 
Gillam,  who  has  made  a special  study  of  Roman  coarse  pottery 
in  the  north  of  England,  is  inclined  to  date  it  to  the  second  half 
of  the  second  century  A.D. 

One  further  feature  of  the  tower  calls  for  notice.  At  some 
time  after  its  completion,  a temporary  dwelling,  in  the  form  of  a 
lean-to  shed,  had  been  built  against  the  exposed  back  wall  near 
the  west  corner.  The  evidence  for  this  consisted  of  a round- 
topped  niche,  flanked  on  either  side  by  a socket-hole,  all  of  which 
had  been  chiselled  out  of  the  finished  masonry  (pi.  IVa).  The 
sockets,  6 feet  10  inches  apart  and  4 feet  6 inches  above  the 
Roman  ground  level,  presumably  held  the  main  side-struts  of  the 
shed;  while  the  niche,  which  was  heavily  coated  with  soot  and 

1 Northumberland  County  History,  xv,  98, 


measured  3 feet  2 inches  high,  1 foot  9 inches  broad  at  the  base, 
and  1 foot  6 inches  deep,  served  as  a hearth.  A layer  of  occupation 
refuse,  primarily  soot,  extended  from  the  base  of  the  niche  to  the 
original  Roman  surface,  and  was  traceable  from  the  centre  of  the 
hearth  eastwards  for  a distance  of  10  feet  along  the  face  of  the 
tower.  It  contained  scraps  of  Samian  forms  18/31  (stamped 
LVPVS.F  retro),  33  and  37  (all  Antonine);  the  coarse  sherds 
illustrated  in  fig.  24,  nos.  9-20;  a number  of  glass  fragments 
dating  to  the  second  or  third  centuries  (infra,  p.  75);  one  bronze 
and  two  bone  needles  (fig.  26,  nos.  1-3);  and  an  infant  skeleton. 
The  coarse  pottery  evidence,  discussed  by  Mr.  Gillam  on  pp.  66-7, 
suggests  that  this  slum-dwelling  was  most  probably  occupied  in 
the  period  162-96  A.D.,  although  an  early  third-century  date 
cannot  be  entirely  ruled  out.  It  is  worth  noting,  however,  that 
the  tower  was  apparently  still  in  good  order  when  the  shed  was 
built:  had  it  been  in  ruins  one  would  have  expected  to  find  some 
debris  beneath  the  occupation  floor  of  the  shed,  whereas,  as 
already  explained,  the  occupation  material  rested  directly  on  the 
original  surface  at  the  base  of  the  tower. 

The  Bastion  (figs.  15  and  16;  pi.  Ia). 

Like  the  two  northern  angles,  the  south-east  angle  was 
subsequently  strengthened  by  the  addition  of  an  external  bastion. 
Owing  to  the  depth  of  the  remains,  it  was  only  possible  in  the 
time  available  to  examine  this  structure  in  cross-section  in  the 
main  trench,  and  to  locate  the  north-west  junction  of  its  footings 
with  those  of  the  town  wall,  so  that  its  precise  shape  is  not  known. 
It  seems  probable,  however,  that  it  was  semi-circular  on  plan, 
with  a width  at  the  wall  of  about  60  feet  and  a maximum  pro- 
jection of  some  30  feet.  In  the  lowest  stage,  the  bastion,  like  the 
angle-tower,  was  of  solid  construction,  consisting  of  a gravel  core 
retained  by  a stone  wall  12  feet  thick.  This  wall,  which  was  laid 
on  a foundation  of  large  cobbles  bound  with  clay,  had  been 
entirely  robbed  in  the  section,  but  the  gravel  pack  preserved  the 
imprint  of  the  inner  face,  while  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  outer 
face  would  be  set  back  about  1 foot  from  the  edge  of  the  footings 
as  at  the  north-east  angle  (supra,  p.  7).  In  spite  of  the  total 
absence  of  masonry,  the  nature  of  the  wall  was  clearly  shown  by 
a thin  layer  of  builders’  rubbish — comprising  chippings  of  mill- 
stone grit,  limestone,  and  yellow  sandstone  mixed  with  daubs  of 
yellow  mortar — which  was  intercalated  between  the  gravel  pack 
and  the  rearward  projection  of  the  footings.  These  materials 
were  not,  as  far  as  we  know,  employed  in  the  construction  of  the 
original  defences,  except  possibly  at  the  gates,  but  they  appear 
to  have  been  used  for  all  the  Aldborough  bastions.  The  only 
direct  evidence  for  dating  the  south-east  angle-bastion  was  a 
cooking-pot  rim  of  late  third-  or  early  fourth-century  date  (fig. 
24,  no.  21)  found  in  the  heart  of  the  gravel  pack. 

Search  below  the  bastion  footings  failed  to  reveal  any  traces 
of  a ditch  contemporary  with  the  town  wall.  But  this  negative 

Plate  IIIa.  Plate  111b. 

Section  II,  1937  : wall  rebuild.  Sleeper  trench  in  main  section,  1938. 


evidence  is  not  conclusive,  since  the  excavation  for  the  bastion 
footings  would  have  completely  eradicated  a ditch  less  than  5 feet 
in  depth. 

Section  II  (figs.  15  and  18;  pi.  IIIa). 

This  section  was  cut  through  the  town  wall  50  feet  north  ol 
the  south-east  angle,  and  the  outer  face  of  the  wall  was  sub- 
sequently traced  southwards  to  establish  the  point  of  junction 
with  the  bastion  footings.  In  the  section,  the  wall  was  9 feet 
6 inches  wide  at  the  base,  including  an  internal  off-set  course, 
and  was  faced  on  either  side  with  the  usual  red  sandstone  ashlar 
set  in  white  mortar.  Three  to  four  courses  of  the  outer  face  and 
five  courses  of  the  inner  face  survived,  and  the  outer  edge  of  the 
clay  and  cobble  footings  was  revetted  by  an  irregular  kerbing  of 
untrimmed  sandstone  blocks.  The  rampart-bank,  standing  here 
to  a height  of  6 feet,  showed  two  distinct  tip  layers  of  which  the 
lower,  composed  mainly  of  the  brash  that  locally  overlies  the 
solid  rock,  is  most  easily  explained  as  upcast  from  an  external 
ditch  accompanying  the  town  wall.  Apart  from  the  Samian 
forms  18/31  and  37  (respectively  Domitianic  and  Antonine)  and 
indeterminate  chips  of  coarse  grey  ware,  the  sherds  found  in  the 
bank  all  came  from  a sweeping  in  the  upper  tip  layer.  They 
included  Samian  forms  18/31,  33  and  37  (all  Antonine),  and  a 
carinated  bowl  with  a reed  rim  and  a buff  flagon  (both  late  first- 
or  early  second-century).  An  as  of  Nerva  was  also  found  in  the 

The  main  feature  of  this  section  can  only  be  appreciated  in 
conjunction  with  the  evidence  from  the  cross-trench  which  ex- 
posed the  outer  face  of  the  town  wall  for  a length  of  28  feet 
(pi.  1b).  Here  for  the  first  time  we  encountered  proof  that  the 
wall  had  been  at  some  time  systematically  destroyed  and  later 
rebuilt.  The  thoroughness  of  the  destruction  may  be  gauged  from 
the  fact  that,  at  the  point  where  the  section  and  cross-trench 
intersected,  a breach  8 feet  wide  had  entirely  removed  both  wall 
and  footings,  while  elsewhere  rebuilding  had  started  from  the 
third  or  fourth  courses.  As  the  photograph  shows,  this  rebuilding 
was  executed  in  a rough  and  ready  fashion  as  though  hurriedly 
and  by  unskilled  hands.  The  breach  was  filled  to  the  level  of  the 
surviving  masonry  on  either  side  by  one  to  two  courses  of  sand- 
stone blocks  laid  on  inadequately  prepared  footings  which  had 
subsequently  settled.  Above  this,  the  face  of  the  new  wall  was 
set  back  from  12  to  20  inches,  the  two  lower  courses  being  off-set 
in  one  place  and  flush  in  another.  The  masonry  consisted  princi- 
pally of  sandstone  ashlar  from  the  debris  of  the  original  wall,  but 
five  large,  reused  blocks  of  millstone  grit  were  significantly  in- 
corporated. The  treatment  of  the  back  of  the  wall  was  even  more 
drastic.  As  the  section  shows,  no  attempt  was  made  to  restore 
the  inner  face:  instead,  the  bank  was  cut  back  to  allow  the 
insertion  of  a new  core.  This  core,  composed  of  alternate  layers 
of  red  sandstone  rubble  and  poor  quality  mortar  run  in  in  a liquid 




By  K.  A.  Steer  and  Mrs.  A.  M.  H.  Chitty. 

In  the  previous  three  seasons  our  time  had  been  fully 
occupied  with  problems  relating  to  the  town  wall  and  its  towers 
and  bastions,  and  it  had  not  been  possible  to  obtain  a complete 
section  of  the  rampart-bank  or  to  establish  beyond  doubt  the 
existence  of  a wall-ditch.  To  remedy  this,  a fourth  season,  in  the 
summer  of  1938,  was  devoted  to  a long  section  across  the  northern 
defences,  90  yards  west  of  the  north-east  angle,  while  some  ex- 
ploratory trenching  was  carried  out  on  the  site  of  the  north 
gateway  located  by  Mr.  Barber  in  1924. 

Section  I (figs.  19  and  20). 

The  Wall  and  Rampart-bank. 

The  wall  was  found  precisely  on  the  line  between  the  two 
northern  angles  at  a depth  of  6 feet  below  the  present  surface.  It 
measured  8 feet  2 inches  thick  above  an  external  off-set  course, 
and,  as  elsewhere,  consisted  of  a rubble  core  bound  with  hard 
white  mortar  and  faced  on  both  sides  with  red  sandstone  ashlar. 
Not  more  than  three  courses  of  the  outer  face  and  five  courses  of 
the  inner  face  remained  in  situ,  the  stones  used  for  the  outer  face 
being  large  and  neatly  dressed,  while  those  of  the  inner  face  were 
smaller  and  only  roughly  coursed.  As  the  natural  subsoil  in  this 
part  of  the  town  is  alluvial  sand,  the  wall  footings  were  sunk  to  a 
depth  of  7 feet  and  projected  2 feet  6 inches  on  either  side  of  the 
wall:  they  consisted  of  river  cobbles  set  in  stiff  blue  clay  and 
carefully  graded  so  that  the  smaller  cobbles  were  uppermost.  The 
footings  did  not  occupy  the  entire  width  of  the  foundation-trench 
that  had  been  dug  for  them,  and  the  spaces  on  either  side  were 
packed  with  dirty  sand.  A plated  denarius  which  was  found 
embedded  in  the  footings  at  the  back  of  the  wall  was  unfortunately 
too  corroded  to  be  identified  with  certainty.1 

The  rampart-bank  was  clearly  contemporary  with  the  wall 
since  it  abutted  against  the  surviving  stonework  and  actually 
retained  the  impression  of  an  internal  off-set  between  the  sixth 
and  seventh  courses.  Composed  of  sand  in  which  the  tip-layers 
were  readily  distinguishable,  it  measured  21  feet  in  width  at  the 
base  and  was  standing  to  a height  of  6 feet:  the  pitch  of  the 
slope  indicates  that  it  was  originally  at  least  3 feet  higher  at  the 
wall  face.  A considerable  number  of  sherds  found  in  the  bank 
included  Samian  forms  18  (one  stamped  MONTfCI]),  18/31  (one 

stamped  A[V]STRTM),  27,  33,  37  (figs.  22-3,  nos.  5-9  and  12),  and 
79,  together  with  the  two  coarse  sherds  illustrated  in  fig.  25, 
nos.  43-4,  and  chips  of  rustic  ware,  a flagon,  a rough-cast  beaker, 
a fumed  platter  and  a painted  bowl  in  imitation  of  Samian  form 
37  from  the  same  pottery  that  produced  fig.  25,  35.  Dr.  Oswald 
dates  the  earliest  Samian  pieces  to  circa  60-70  A.D.,  and  the 

1 For  a discussion  of  this  coin,  see  p.  60  no.  4. 



latest  to  circa  140-150  A.D.,  while  the  coarse  sherds  all  conform 
to  these  limits.  As  in  Section  III,  1935,  the  bank  was  capped  by 
a thick  layer  of  rubbish  which  extended  into  the  town  beyond  the 
end  of  the  trench.  From  this  deposit  came  a bronze  pendant 
decorated  with  an  open-work  triskele  (fig.  26,  no.  13),  scraps  of 
Samian  forms  18/31,  27,  33  (one  stamped  CINT-[VGENI]),  37  and 
38;  and  the  coarse  sherds  illustrated  in  fig.  25,  nos.  50-9.  On 
the  evidence  of  the  coarse  pottery,  dumping  of  this  rubbish 
appears  to  have  begun  in  the  period  162-96  A.D.  and  to  have 
continued  into  the  third  century.  No  fourth-century  material  was 
found  in  it  at  this  point. 

Pre-Wall  Occupation  (fig.  20). 

Both  the  rampart-bank  and  the  southern  extension  of  the 
rubbish-tip  rested  on  the  levelled  occupation-debris  of  a timber- 
framed building  denoted  by  a U-shaped  sleeper-trench,  2 feet 
2 inches  wide  and  1 foot  4 inches  deep,  dug  in  the  natural  sand 
and  running  slightly  obliquely  to  the  section:  its  northern  end 
had  been  destroyed  by  the  foundation-trench  for  the  wall  footings. 
The  walls  of  the  building  had  been  of  wattle-and-daub  and  had 
been  coated  with  painted  plaster.  On  the  east  side  of  the  sleeper- 
trench  there  was  no  sign  of  a floor,  but  the  subsoil  was  stained 
by  two  dirty  streaks  lying  roughly  parallel  to  the  sleeper-trench 
and  varying  from  1 to  7 inches  in  depth  (pi.  IIIb).  These  streaks 
contained  no  trace  of  decayed  wood  or  other  intrusive  material, 
and  cannot  therefore  be  interpreted  as  slots  for  timbers.  A 
possible  explanation,  suggested  by  Professor  Richmond  on  the 
analogy  of  the  runnels  which  he  observed  at  Fendoch,1  is  that 
they  were  formed  by  rain  water  dripping  from  the  roof  of  the 
building  represented  by  the  sleeper-trench,  and  from  the  roof  of 
an  adjacent  building  situated  just  beyond  the  east  wall  of  the 
section.  Evidence  that  the  buildings  of  this  phase  extended  to 
the  north  of  the  line  taken  by  the  stone  defences  was  furnished 
by  the  discovery,  on  the  berm,  of  another  sleeper-trench  running 
at  right-angles  to  the  section.  Here  the  occupation-layer  had  been 
skinned  off  during  the  construction  of  the  wall  and  ditch,  but  a 
little  pottery  survived  in  the  filling  of  the  trench  itself.  The  main 
sleeper-trench  and  the  debris  immediately  overlying  it  produced 
a fair  amount  of  pottery,  both  Samian  and  coarse  wares,  together 
with  much  miscellaneous  refuse  including  daub,  painted  wall- 
plaster,  burnt  wood,  oyster-shells  and  bones.  Owing  to  the  dis- 
turbance caused  by  the  wall  builders,  no  stratification  was  visible. 
The  Samian  sherds,  four  of  which  are  illustrated  in  fig.  22,  nos. 
1-4,  comprised  forms  18,  25,  27,  29,  37,  38  and  Curie  11.  The 
earliest  pieces,  seven  in  number,  are  dated  by  Dr.  Oswald  “not 
later  than  70  A.D.;  possibly  65-70  A.D.”,  while  of  the  remainder, 
nine  are  Flavian,  three  Domitianic  and  four  Hadrianic.  The 
latest  (fig.  22,  no.  4)  is  a fragment  of  a bowl  by  Ianus  of  Rhein- 

1 Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland,  lxxiii,  122. 



zabern  dated  circa  125-30  A.D.  The  coarse  sherds  (fig.  25,  nos. 
22-42  and  45-9)  cover  a similar  range  and  include  nothing 
necessarily  later  than  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  It  is 
possible,  therefore,  that  these  buildings  may  have  been  erected 
during  or  shortly  after  the  conquest  of  Brigantia  by  Petilius 
Cerialis  in  the  years  71-4  A.D.,  and  that  they  continued  in  use 
at  least  until  130  A.D.  The  absence  of  any  sign  of  a turf-line 
between  the  debris  of  the  buildings  and  the  base  of  the  rampart- 
bank  suggests  that  they  did  not  fall  gradually  into  decay,  but 
that  they  were  demolished  while  in  good  order  to  make  way  for 
the  stone  defences. 

The  Ditches  (fig.  20). 

Contemporary  with  the  town  wall,  and  separated  from  it  by 
a berm  13  feet  6 inches  wide,  there  was  a V-shaped,  flat-bottomed 
ditch  about  17  feet  wide  and  5 feet  deep.  The  sandy  clay  upcast 
had  been  spread  out  over  the  ground  immediately  to  the  north 
of  it,  sealing  a second  ditch,  only  8 feet  6 inches  wide  and  3 feet 
deep,  and  a pit,  both  of  which  presumably  belong  to  the  pre-wall 
occupation  of  the  area.  Two  tip-layers  could  be  distinguished  in 
the  upcast,  but  few  sherds  were  found  in  either  layer:  the  lower 
one  contained  a piece  of  Samian  form  37  attributable  to  Attianus 
of  Lezoux  and  dated  circa  120-5  A.D.,  and  a chip  of  rustic  ware; 
while  the  upper  layer,  which  was  probably  the  product  of  a later 
cleaning  of  the  ditch,  yielded  two  pieces  of  Samian  form  37,  one 
of  which  (fig.  22,  no.  10)  dates  to  circa  120-30  A.D.,  and  the 
other,  in  the  style  of  Cinnamus,  to  circa  140-50  A.D.,  together 
with  a few  scraps  of  second-century  coarse  vessels.  The  filling  of 
the  wall-ditch  was  likewise  uninformative,  containing  only  a scrap 
of  Samian  form  37  (Trajanic),  and  the  rim  of  a rough-cast  beaker 
of  Antonine  type;  but  on  top  of  the  filling,  and  completely  sealing 
the  ditch,  there  was  a layer  of  red  sandstone  rubble,  including 
broken  pieces  of  dressed  stones,  eloquent  of  a large-scale  repair  of 
the  wall  at  a time  when  the  ditch  itself  had  gone  out  of  use.  A 
thick  bank  of  rubbish,  which  directly  overlay  this  debris  and 
extended  northwards  for  a distance  of  34  feet  beyond  it,  con- 
tained a great  number  of  coarse  sherds — hammer-headed  mortaria, 
a folded  Rhenish  beaker,  two  fragments  of  painted  face-urns,  a 
Crambeck  bowl,  cooking-pots  with  strongly  everted  rims  and 
obtuse-angled  lattice  decoration,  and  rimless  platters  decorated 
externally  with  burnished  intersecting  arcs — all  of  which  are 
typical  of  deposits  dating  to  the  early  and  middle  years  of  the 
fourth  century  on  Hadrian’s  Wall,  and  at  the  fort  of  Lanchester 
in  County  Durham.1  It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  the  repair 
of  the  wall  in  this  sector  dates  to  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century, 
and  was  part  of  a general  overhaul  of  the  defences  which  included 
the  abandonment  of  the  original  town-ditch,  now  no  doubt 
rendered  obsolete  by  the  addition  of  bastions  to  the  curtain-wall. 

1 Trans.  Architectural  and  Archaeological  Society  of  Durham  and 
Northumberland,  ix,  112-22. 





A T 




19  3 8 









FOUND  1024 



fourth  cent 




of  blocking  wall 

FOUND  IN  1024 

T/-7/7  r?  r7rr/~r, 
/ / '/////' ' ' '/ , 
s // / / ////////, 

/ sue  or  town  wall  ' 

S'////// /// / // 

7'  J' 




024  TRENCH  J 


v ? vr  i "i4*  u*  r-"‘v» 








fit  T 




Fig.  21 

Plate  IVa. 

Back  of  S.E.  angle-tower,  shewing  hearth. 

Plate  IVb. 

Tank  base  at  north  gate. 


A third  ditch  found  at  the  extreme  northern  end  of  the  section, 
but  which  could  not  be  fully  excavated  owing  to  flooding,  yielded 
no  datable  material.  It  is  likely,  however,  that  it  was  dug  to 
replace  the  original  wall-ditch,  since  the  fourth-century  rubbish- 
layer  did  not  extend  across  it  but  terminated  abruptly  on  its 
south  lip. 

The  North  Gate  (fig.  21). 

In  order  to  examine  the  relationship  between  the  town  wall 
and  the  remains  found  by  Mr.  Barber  on  the  site  of  the  north 
gate  in  1924  ( supra  p.  6),  a trench  was  dug  parallel  to  the  field 
hedge  separating  O.S.  45  and  46  (Site  G,  section  A-B).  This 
trench  narrowly  missed  the  two  millstone-grit  blocks  interpreted 
by  Mr.  Barber  as  part  of  the  foundations  of  the  west  pier,  but 
they  were  picked  up  in  a short  cross-trench  (section  C-D),  while 
the  inner  face  of  the  town  wall  was  located  on  Site  E (fig.  19) 
and  its  line  followed  on  Site  F as  far  as  the  eastern  edge  of  the 
latest  road  surface.  From  this  limited  excavation  it  is  not  possible 
to  deduce  the  character  of  the  original  gateway,  and  in  view  of 
the  thoroughness  with  which  the  masonry  has  been  robbed  on 
Sites  F and  G it  is  doubtful  whether  its  plan  can  now  be  recovered 
except  by  stripping  the  whole  area  to  the  tops  of  the  footings — 
an  undertaking  which  would  involve  the  removal  of  at  least  7 
feet  of  topsoil.  Valuable  stratified  material  bearing  on  the  date 
of  erection  and  subsequent  history  of  the  defences  was,  however, 
obtained  from  Site  G,  and  may  be  summarised  as  follows. 

In  a pit  sunk  at  the  south  end  of  section  A-B  the  subsoil 
was  nearly  11  feet  below  the  present  ground  level.1  Over  it  there 
were  nine  layers  of  road  metalling,  numbered  I to  IX  from  bottom 
to  top  on  fig.  21,  with  a total  thickness  of  5 feet.  Layers  I-V 
were  composed  of  rammed  gravel,  of  which  IV  and  V certainly 
represent  road  surfaces  since  each  was  covered  by  a thin  film  of 
mud  containing  a few  indeterminate  chips  of  pottery.  Layers 
I-III,  on  the  other  hand,  were  quite  clean,  and  may  therefore 
have  been  nothing  more  than  the  bottoming  of  IV.  The  greater 
part  of  the  section  was  taken  down  to  the  level  of  VI  which  was 
8 inches  deep  and  formed  of  cobbles  mixed  with  gravel.  This 
surface  was  undoubtedly  coeval  with  the  stone  defences  since  it 
was  flush  with  the  top  of  the  massive  footings  on  which  the 
millstone-grit  blocks  rested.  A fortuitous  piece  of  evidence  pointing 
to  the  same  conclusion  was  furnished  by  the  base  of  a water-tank 
found  at  the  south  end  of  the  section  (pi.  IVb).  It  measured  8 
feet  9 inches  by  6 feet,  and  was  rebated  within  a 6-inch  margin 
to  receive  side  slabs  10  inches  in  thickness.  As  in  the  case  of 
the  Lincoln  fountain,2  the  rebate  had  a central  groove,  semi- 
circular in  section  and  3 inches  wide,  which  was  doubtless  keyed 

1 The  exceptional  depth  of  the  subsoil  at  this  point  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  road-builders  delved  down  through  the  alluvial  sand  in  order  to 
base  the  road  on  the  underlying  boulder  clay. 

2 Journal  of  Roman  Studies,  xlvi,  34. 


by  mortar  to  a similar  but  opposed  groove  in  the  base  of  each 
side  slab.  Considerable  wear  was  visible  on  the  margin  of  the 
tank,  particularly  in  the  centre  of  the  north  side.  The  existence 
of  a tank  at  this  point  can  only  be  explained  on  the  assumption 
that  it  was  related  to  the  stone  defences,  and  it  is  evident  that 
similar  tanks  were  provided  at  the  other  gates.  For  two  corner- 
slabs  bearing  identical  rebates  and  grooves  and  found  on  the  site 
of  the  west  gate  are  preserved  at  the  Manor,  while  another  similar 
corner-slab,  presumably  taken  from  the  east  gate,  is  lying  in  the 
grounds  of  Aldborough  Hall. 

In  view  of  the  contemporaneity  of  the  town  wall  and  road 
VI,  special  importance  attaches  to  the  dating  material  found  on 
the  surface  of  the  road.  This  consisted  of  a dupondius  or  as  of 
Hadrian  (p.  57,  no.  1)  dated  134-8  A.D.,  which  was  in  fresh 
condition  when  lost;  a fragment  of  a ring-necked  jug  of  Hadrianic 
or  Antonine  date;  and  the  following  Samian  sherds:  form  33 
with  the  Trajan-Antonine  stamp  MAMMI,  a large  part  of  a form 
37  by  Cinnamus  of  Lezoux  dated  circa  130-40  A.D.  (fig.  22,  no. 
11),  and  the  base  of  a vase,  perhaps  a late  form  67  from  Rheinza- 
bern,  dated  circa  140-50  A.D.  It  can  be  concluded  therefore  that 
the  stone  defences  were  not  erected  before  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century. 

All  that  can  be  said  about  the  plan  of  the  gate  in  the  initial 
phase  is  that  it  does  not  seem  to  have  projected  internally,  like 
those  at  Lincoln  and  Silchester,  since  the  south-east  corner  of  the 
footings  exposed  in  section  A-B  is  in  line  with  the  back  of  the 
town  wall  further  east.  On  Site  F the  superstructure  had  been 
completely  robbed,  and  although  a change  in  the  depth  of  the 
footings,  occurring  6 feet  from  the  eastern  edges  of  roads  VIII 
and  IX,  may  mark  the  junction  between  the  wall  and  the  gateway, 
this  point  requires  confirmation.  Further  excavation  is  also 
needed  to  establish  the  western  limit  of  the  footings  on  Site  F, 
beneath  roads  VIII  and  IX,  and  to  relate  another  set  of  footings, 
whose  north-west  corner  was  found  25  feet  east  of  the  water-tank, 
to  the  general  plan. 

Road  VII  was  8 inches  thick  at  the  south  end  of  section 
A-B,  but  merged  with  the  surface  of  road  VI  midway  along  the 
sides  of  the  tank.  Although  no  dating  material  was  found  on  it, 
it  clearly  represents  nothing  more  than  a local  repair,  effected 
while  the  tank  was  still  in  use.  An  entirely  new  phase  is,  however, 
indicated  by  road  VIII  which  was  30  feet  wide  and  consisted  of 
rammed  cobbles  and  gravel  up  to  19  inches  in  thickness:  the 
western  edge  of  this  road  terminated  against  the  upper  edges  of 
the  millstone-grit  blocks,  and,  as  already  explained,  the  eastern 
edge  of  the  road  overlapped  the  footings  on  Site  F.  Before  the 
road  was  laid,  the  sides  of  the  water-tank  were  dismantled  and  its 
base  incorporated  in  the  new  metalling.  A trench  cut  across  the 
road  in  1924,  in  line  with  the  millstone  blocks,  had  disclosed  that 
the  metalling  of  both  roads  VIII  and  IX  was  interrupted,  roughly 
in  the  centre,  by  a pit  measuring  4-8  feet  in  width  and  at  least 


Fig.  22. 

Samian  Ware,  1938  ($). 


10  feet  in  length.  It  is  possible  that  this  pit  represents  the  robbing 
of  the  foundations  of  a central  pier,  in  which  case  the  gateway 
contemporary  with  roads  VIII  and  IX  will  have  had  double 
carriageways  each  about  12  feet  wide.  But  this  is  merely  specu- 
lation. Embedded  in  the  metalling  of  road  VIII  there  was  a 
slightly  worn  dupondius  of  Antoninus  Pius  (p.  60,  no.  2)  dated 
154-5  A.D.,  and  lying  on  the  surface  of  the  road  there  was  a 
denarius  of  Severus  Alexander  (222-35  A.D.)  in  mint  condition 
(p.  60,  no.  3).  Thus,  although  the  evidence  falls  short  of  proof, 
it  is  reasonable  to  associate  this  drastic  remodelling  of  the  gate, 
and  the  construction  of  a new  road,  with  a repair  of  the  defences 
following  the  invasion  of  the  Maeatae  in  197  A.D.,  when  the  walls 
of  the  legionary  fortress  at  York  were  systematically  overthrown. 

Road  IX,  whose  unbroken  surface  of  cobbles  bound  by  a 
wash  of  lime  mortar  indicated  that  it  was  the  last  on  the  site, 
was  simply  a remetalling  of  road  VIII — the  only  difference  being 
that  its  western  edge  oversailed  the  millstone  blocks  by  a few 
inches.  A rough  blocking  wall,  contemporary  with  this  road,  and 
extending  from  its  eastern  edge  to  the  presumed  central  pier,  was 
found  in  1924.  Between  the  two  millstone-grit  blocks  and  the 
southern  end  of  section  A-B,  the  road  was  covered  by  two 
occupation-layers  separated  by  a narrow  band  of  masons’  chip- 
pings.  The  sherds  from  the  lower-layer1  were  all  typical  of  deposits 
of  the  period  296-367  A.D.,  while  those  from  the  upper  layer2 
belong  to  the  last  quarter  of  the  fourth  century.  Road  IX  and 
the  blocking-wall  can  therefore  be  ascribed  to  the  overhaul  of  the 
defences  which  is  known  to  have  taken  place  in  the  early  fourth 
century,  while  the  masons’  chippings  point  to  a final  restoration 
following  the  barbarian  invasion  of  367  A.D. 


Only  one  coin  was  found  during  the  1937  excavations.  It 
was  an  as  of  Nerva,  and  came  from  the  rampart  bank  in  section  II. 

The  1938  excavations  were  rather  more  productive,  yielding 
sixteen  coins,  details  of  which  are  given  below.  Two  of  the  coins 
(nos.  4 and  6)  were  identified  by  H.  Mattingly,  F.S.A.,  and  the 
remainder  by  the  late  W.  V.  Wade,  F.S.A. 

1.  North  Gate.  Surface  of  road  VI. 

Hadrian  (117-38  A.D.).  Dupondius  or  as. 

Obv.  hadr[ianvs]  avg  cos  hi  pp  Bust  bare  r. 

Rev.  S C Minerva. 

M & S 827  134-8  A.D. 

1 A cooking-pot  as  fig.  24,  no.  21;  a folded  beaker  as  at  Lanchester, 
op.  cit.,  no.  9;  a rimless  platter  decorated  with  burnished  intersecting  arcs 
as  Lanchester,  nos.  25-6;  and  scraps  of  Castor- type  ware. 

2 E.g.  Five  Huntcliff-type  cooking-pots,  and  a platter  and  a flanged 
bowl  from  the  Crambeck  kilns. 



Fig.  23.  Samian  Ware,  1938  (£). 


2.  North  Gate.  In  the  metalling  of  road  VIII. 

Antoninus  Pius  (138-61  A.D.).  Dupondius. 

Obv.  antonin[vs  avg  p]ivs  pp  tr  p x[viii]  Head  radiate  r. 
Rev.  [Britannia  co]s  mi  s c Britannia  seated  1.  on  a rock, 
head  propped  on  r.  hand,  1.  hand  on  rock;  to  1.,  round 
shield  and  vexillum. 

M & S 930  154-5  A.D. 

3.  North  Gate.  Surface  of  road  VIII. 

Severus  Alexander  (222-35  A.D.).  Denarius. 

Obv.  imp  c m avr  sev  alexand  avg  Bust  laureate  and 
draped  r. 

Rev.  virtvs  avg  Virtus  r. 

Cohen  576  222-35  A.D. 

4.  Section  I.  In  the  footings  of  the  town  wall. 

Uncertain.  Plated  denarius. 

Obv.  Female  head  r. 

Rev a[vg]  Female  figure  standing  1.,  holding 

scales  and  cornucopiae. 

As  far  as  is  known,  the  only  empress  employing  the 
reverse  type  of  a female  figure  holding  scales  and  cornu- 
copiae is  Julia  Domna,  wife  of  Septimius  Severus,  who  uses 
it  with  the  legends  aeqvitas  avg  and  moneta  avg.  In  view 
of  the  illegibility  of  the  obverse  legend,  the  present  coin 
cannot,  however,  be  definitely  attributed  to  Julia  Domna 
for  the  following  reasons:  (a)  almost  every  new  hoard  of 
Roman  coins  contains  varieties  not  listed  in  Cohen  or  M & 
S;  (b)  there  is  always  the  possibility  that  the  coin  in  question 
was  a hybrid,  the  obverse  die  of  an  empress  being  used  with 
the  reverse  die  of  an  emperor  (e.g.  there  is  an  aureus  of 
Faustina  I with  the  reverse  type  Aequitas  standing  1., 
holding  scales  and  cornucopiae,  and  the  legend  cos  mi). 

5-13.  Unstratified. 

5.  Julia,  daughter  of  Titus  (79-81  A.D.).  Dupondius. 

Obv.  ivlia  [imp  t avg  f avgvsta]  Bust  draped  r. 

Rev.  Illegible. 

cf.  M & S 177-80  c.  80  A.D. 

6.  Antoninus  Pius  (138-61  A.D.).  Dupondius. 

Obv.  [antoninvs  avg  p]ivs  pp  tr  p xviii  Head  radiate  r. 
Rev.  brit[annia  cos  iiii]  s c Britannia  seated  1. 

M & S 930  154-5  A.D. 

7.  Gallienus  (253-68  A.D.).  Antoninianus. 

Obv.  [gallien]vs  avg  Head  radiate  r. 

Rev.  laeti[tia  avg]  Laetitia  standing  1. 

M & S 226  253-68  A.D.  Rome. 

8.  Claudius  II  (268-70  A.D.).  Antoninianus. 

Obv.  [imp  (c)  cla]vdivs  av[g]  Head  radiate  r. 

Rev.  Illegible. 

268-70  A.D. 


9.  Claudius  II  (268-70  A.D.).  Antoninianus. 

Obv.  divo  [clavdio]  Head  radiate  r. 

Rev.  Illegible. 
c.  270  A.D. 

10.  Claudius  II  (268-70  A.D.).  Antoninianus. 

Obv.  imp  c clavdivs  avg  Bust  radiate  and  cuirassed  r. 
Rev.  [a]eqvitas  [avg]  Aequitas  standing  1. 

M & S 14  268-70  A.D. 

11.  Claudius  II  (268-70  A.D.).  Antoninianus. 

Obv.  imp  cla[vdivs  avg]  Bust  radiate,  draped  and  cuirassed 

Rev.  virtvs  avg  Soldier  to  1.,  leaning  on  shield  and  holding 

M & S 111  268-70  A.D. 

12.  Tetricus  I (270-3  A.D.).  Antoninianus. 

Obv.  [imp  tet]ricvs  p f avg  Bust  radiate  draped  r. 

Rev.  pax  [avgg]  Pax  standing  1. 

M & S 106  270-3  A.D. 

13.  Tetricus  I (270-3  A.D.).  Antoninianus. 

Obv.  imp  c t[etricvs  p f avg]  Bust  radiate  r. 

Rev.  [hilaritas  (?)]  a[vg]  Hilaritas  (?)  standing  1. 
cf.  M & S 75/6  270-3  A.D. 

14.  Diocletian  (284-305  A.D.).  Antoninianus. 

Obv.  imp  c c val  diocletians  p f avg  Bust  radiate, 
draped  and  cuirassed  r. 

Rev.  iovi  conservat  avg  Jupiter  standing  1. 
cf.  M & S 41  284-305  A.D.  Lugdunum.  The  die-maker 

has  inadvertently  left  out  the  v of  diocletianvs. 

15.  Constantius  II  (337-61  A.D.).  Antoninianus. 

Obv.  co]nstantivs  avg  Bust  diademed  r. 

Rev.  [gloria  exerc]itvs  Two  soldiers,  helmeted,  face  to 
face,  leaning  on  shields  and  holding  spears:  between 
them  a standard. 

cf.  Cohen  93/103  337-61  A.D.  Trier. 

16.  Valens  (364-78  A.D.).  Ae. 

Obv.  [d  n valen]s  p f avg  Bust  diademed  and  draped  r. 
Rev.  secvritas  [reipublicae]  Victory  walking  1. 

Cohen  47  364-78  A.D.  Lugdunum. 

In  addition  to  identifying  the  bulk  of  the  coins  found  in 
1937-8,  Mr.  Wade  also  kindly  undertook,  at  my  request,  the 
examination  of  over  one  thousand  coins  which  are  preserved 
either  in  the  local  museum  at  Aldborough,  or  at  Aldborough 
Manor.  The  results  of  this  formidable  task,  which  occupied  much 
of  Mr.  Wade’s  leisure  time  over  a period  of  nine  months,  are 
summarised  in  the  following  table. 





M 1 

JE  2 



























































Antoninus  Pius 





Faustina  I 





Marcus  Aurelius 





Faustina  II 





Lucius  Verus 













Faustina  II  or  Lucilla  or 






Septimius  Severus 




Julia  Domna 


















Julia  Soaemias 



Julia  Maesa 



Severus  Alexander 





Julia  Mamaea 



Maximinus  I 



Gordian  III 





Philip  I 



Trajan  Decius  ? 



Trebonianus  Gallus 






Valerian  I 







M 2 

M 3 











Valerian  II 












Tetricus  I 



Tetricus  II 



Tetricus  I or  II 



Claudius  II 















Maximianus  Herculius 












Maximinus  Daia 



Licinius  I 



Constantine  I 




Helena,  wife  of 

Constantius  I 



Theodora,  do 






Urbs  Roma 



Populus  Romanus 






Constantine  II 



Constantius  II 






House  of  Constantine 









Magnentius  or  Decentius 



Constantius  Gallus 



Julian  II 



Valentinian  I 









Valentinian  II 



Magnus  Maximus 



Theodosius  I 



Theodosius  I? 






JE  3 


House  of  Theodosius 









Barbarous  JE  4 

(Radiate  and  diademed) 




Ancient  British 

(Dobunian)  JE 


Greek  JE  19  mm 


Greek  Imperial  JE 

3rd  cent.  A.D. 


Celtiberian-Tarraco  JE 


Numidia-Massinissa  JE 


Illegible,  small  JE 


? Mediaeval  counters  JE 



Fig.  24.— COARSE  POTTERY,  1937.1 

1-2.  From  the  masons’  chippings  underlying  the  filling  of  the 
Angle-  Tower. 

1.  Cooking-pot.  Thin,  hard,  light-grey;  acute-angled  lattice 
decoration.  The  rim  is  distorted  and  presents  two  different 
sections  on  opposite  sides  of  the  vessel — one  in  which  the 

1 The  following  abbreviations  and  references  are  used: — 

A A 3.,  A A 4.:  Archaeologia  Aeliana,  third  and  fourth  series. 

CW2.:  Transactions  of  the  Cumberland  and  Westmorland  Anti- 

quarian and  Archaeological  Society,  new  series. 

SAL.:  Reports  of  the  Research  Committee  of  the  Society  of 

Antiquaries  of  London. 

Appletree  Turret:  CW2.,  xiii.  Balmuildy:  S.  N.  Miller,  The  Roman 
Fort  at  Balmuildy.  Bewcastle:  CW2.,  xxxviii.  Birdoswald:  CW2.,  xxx. 
Birdoswald  Turret:  CW2.,  xiii.  Birrens:  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of 
Antiquaries  of  Scotland,  Ixxii.  Brough  1936:  P.  Corder  and  T.  Romans, 
Excavations  at  the  Roman  Town  at  Brough,  E.  Yorkshire,  1936.  Brough 
1937:  P.  Corder  and  T.  Romans,  Excavations  at  the  Roman  Town  at  Brough- 
Petuaria,  1937.  Carzield:  Transactions  of  the  Dumfriesshire  and  Galloway 
Natural  History  and  Antiquarian  Society,  xxiv.  Chapel  House  Milecastle: 
AA  4.,  vii.  Corbridge:  AA  3.,  viii.  Corbridge  1936-8:  AA  4.,  xv.  Denton 
Hall  Turret:  AA  4.,  vii.  Elmswell:  P.  Corder,  Excavations  at  Elmswell, 
East  Yorkshire,  1938.  Hengistbury  Head:  SAL.,  iii.  Ilkley:  Yorkshire 
Archaeological  Journal,  xxviii.  Langton:  P.  Corder  and  J.  L.  Kirk,  A 
Roman  Villa  at  Langton,  near  Malton.  Leicester:  SAL.,  xv.  Lydney: 
SAL.,  ix.  Malton:  P.  Corder,  The  Defences  of  the  Roman  Fort  at  Malton. 
Mumrills:  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland,  lxiii.  New- 
stead:  J.  Curie,  A Roman  Frontier  Post  and  its  People.  Old  Kilpatrick: 
S.  N.  Miller,  The  Roman  Fort  at  Old  Kilpatrick.  Poltross  Burn:  CW2.,  xi. 
Richborough  I,  II,  III:  SAL.,  vi,  vii,  x.  Silchester:  T.  May,  The  Pottery 
found  at  Silchester.  Slack:  Yorkshire  Archaeological  Journal,  xxvi.  South 
Carlton:  Antiquaries  Journal,  xxiv.  Verulamium:  SAL.,  xi.  Verulamium 
1938:  Archaeologia,  xc. 


Coarse  Pottery,  1937  (£). 

Fig.  24. 



bead  is  rudimentary,  and  the  other  in  which  it  is  sharply 
everted.  Mr.  J.  P.  Gillam  reports:  “It  seems  as  though 
the  exaggerated  bead  is  due  to  an  accident  before  firing, 
and  that  the  section  is  that  of  the  high-rimmed  cooking- 
pots  of  (it  is  generally  believed)  the  third  century.  On  the 
other  hand  the  deep  zone  and  acute  angles  of  the  lattice 
decoration  are  comparatively  early  features,  while  there 
are  second-century  parallels  for  the  rim  shape,  e.g.  Balmuildy 
pi.  xlv,  13;  Birrens,  fig.  28,  6 and  fig.  30,  3-4;  and  Cor- 
bridge, 1947  (unpublished).  I am  inclined  to  date  the  type 
150-200  A.D.” 

2.  Cooking-pot.  Black,  fumed;  acute-angled  lattice  decoration. 
Cf.  Poltross  Burn,  pi.  iii,  22  (latter  half  of  second  century); 
Birdoswald,  fig.  14,  18m  (early  third  century).  Circa 
150  A.D. — early  third  century. 

3-8.  From  the  filling  of  the  Angle-Tower. 

3.  Ring-necked  jug  with  single,  three-ribbed  handle.  Pink 
surface,  grey  core.  Cf.  Slack,  pi.  xxiv,  113  (before  140  A.D.) ; 
Balmuildy,  pi.  xliii,  4 (Antonine);  Brough  1936,  fig.  14, 
115-7  (circa  140  A.D.);  South  Carlton,  fig.  7,  20  (140-180 
A.D.).  Hadrian-Antonine. 

4.  Jug  or  flagon.  Red  surface,  pink  core. 

5.  As  no.  3.  Cream  surface,  dirty-white  core.  Hadrian- 

6.  Flat-rimmed  platter.  Black,  fumed;  acute-angled  lattice 
decoration.  This  type  of  platter  was  in  common  use  by  the 
time  of  Hadrian  (Slack,  pi.  xxiv,  66),  and  lasted  sporadi- 
cally into  the  Antonine  period  (Balmuildy,  pi.  xlvii,  3). 

7.  Carinated  bowl.  Hard,  blue-grey;  burnished  externally. 

Cf.  Langton,  fig.  7,  17  (Flavian). 

8.  Jar.  Hard,  grey. 

9-20.  From  the  occupation-floor  of  the  hut  built  against  the  back 
wall  of  the  Angle-Tower. 

9.  Bead-rim  platter  with  slight  chamfer  at  the  base.  Gritty, 
black;  lattice  decoration.  The  type  appears  early  in  the 
second  century  at  Corbridge  (fig.  7,  43),  and  at  Slack 
(pi.  xxiv,  73)  before  140  A.D.  It  is  common  on  Antonine 
sites  (Newstead,  fig.  32,  7;  Balmuildy,  pi.  xlvii,  15-16; 
Corbridge,  fig.  6,  83),  but  later  occurrences  are  very  rare. 

10.  Platter  with  down-turned  rim  and  no  chamfer.  Gritty 
black,  smoothed  externally.  Cf.  Corbridge  1936-8,  fig.  8, 
6 (162-196  A.D.);  Old  Kilpatrick,  pi.  xxii,  6 (Antonine); 
Birdoswald,  fig.  16,  78  (third  century).  Antonine-Severan. 


11.  Platter  with  pointed  down-turned  rim,  and  slight  chamfer 
at  the  base.  Dark-brown  soapy  fabric,  lattice  decoration. 
Cf.  Corbridge  1936-8,  fig.  8,  17  (139-162  A.D.);  Carzield, 
fig.  2,  1 (Antonine);  Newstead,  fig.  32,  3 (Antonine); 
Leicester,  fig.  19,  19  (220  A.D.);  Bewcastle,  fig.  24,  31-2 
(third  century).  Antonine-Severan. 

12.  As  no.  9. 

13.  Bowl  with  chamfer  at  the  base.  Gritty,  black.  Cf.  Bal- 
muildy,  pi.  xlvii,  9 (Antonine);  Carzield,  fig.  2,  4 (Antonine); 
Birdoswald,  fig.  16,  65  and  70  (second  century);  Bewcastle, 
fig.  24,  27  (third  century);  Chapel  House  Milecastle,  pi.  lii, 
40  (third  century).  Antonine-Severan. 

14.  Mortarium.  Light-brown  fabric,  whitish  grit.  Cf.  Bal- 
muildy,  pi.  xli,  11,  17,  and  20  (Antonine);  Carzield,  fig.  2, 
11  and  14  (Antonine);  Old  Kilpatrick,  pi.  xix,  17  (Antonine); 
Corbridge  1936-8,  fig.  8,  1 (162-196  A.D.);  Birdoswald 
Turret,  pi.  xvi,  1 (second  century).  Antonine. 

15.  Castor  type  beaker.  Dull  metallic  slip,  cream  fracture. 
“Castor  ware"  is  rare  in  the  north  of  England  before 
200  A.D.  but  Antonine  examples  are  known  (e.g.  Corbridge 
1936-8,  fig.  7,  17).  Late  second-or  third-century. 

16.  Beaker.  Hard,  light-grey;  lattice  decoration.  No  exact 

parallels  to  this  rim-profile  have  been  found:  the  closest 
analogies  appear  to  be  Birdoswald,  fig.  15,  41  (second 
century);  Mumrills,  fig.  96,  10  (Antonine);  Ilkley,  pi.  xxxiv, 
31  (assumed  to  be  third  century).  Antonine— third  century. 

17.  Bead-rim  jar.  Hard,  light-grey.  Cf.  Balmuildy , pi.  xlvi,  3 

(Antonine);  Leicester,  fig.  25,  28  (200-250  A.D.).  150-250 


18.  As  no.  16. 

19.  Beaker.  Black,  fumed. 

20.  As  no.  16. 

Sherds  nos.  9-20  have  been  submitted  to  Mr.  J.  P. 

Gillam  who  reports  as  follows:  “The  ‘flavour’  of  the  group 
strikes  me  as  circa  160-200  A.D.,  but  I do  not  think  that 
anyone  could  take  it  as  established  beyond  doubt.  Nos. 
16-20  I am  frankly  incapable  of  dealing  with.  Nos.  9 and 
11-13  are  evidently  later  than  circa  140  A.D.  when  these 
chamfered  bowls  and  platters  appear,  replacing  the  Hadri- 
anic  types;  while  no.  10,  with  its  down-turned  rim,  clearly 
belongs  to  the  period  after  the  chamfer  has  once  more 
disappeared.  The  upper  limit  therefore  depends  on  when 
this  disappearance  took  place.  All  the  platters  and  bowls 
from  the  Antonine  II  levels  at  Corbridge  in  1947  had  a 
slight  chamfer,  and  I know  of  only  two  examples  without 
a chamfer  which  come  from  northern  deposits  of  140-200 
A.D.,  i.e.  Corbridge  1936-8,  fig.  8,  6 (162-196  A.D.),  and 


Old  Kilpatrick,  pi.  xxii,  6 (Antonine).  Third-century 
examples  with  a chamfer  are  rare,  but  cf.  Malton,  fig.  6, 
28;  Chapel  House  Milecastle,  pi.  lii,  40;  Birdoswald,  fig.  16, 
73;  Bewcastle,  fig.  24,  31.  For  practical  purposes  we  may 
take  it  that  the  chamfer  went  out  about  200  A.D.,  with 
the  proviso  that  one  or  two  examples  without  chamfer 
seem  to  have  been  made  before  that  date,  and  that  a 
number  of  survivals  are  to  be  expected  in  the  third  century. 
On  this  basis  the  group  as  a whole,  with  its  ratio  of  four 
chamfered  to  one  unchamfered,  ought  to  be  Antonine  II 
(162-196  A.D.).” 

21.  From  the  filling  of  the  Bastion. 

Cooking-pot.  Coarse  black  ware,  fine  white  grit.  Cf. 
Brough  1936,  fig.  15,  135-8  and  143-7  (late  third-  or  early 
fourth-century);  Poltross  Burn,  pi.  v,  16-17  (Constantian). 
Late  third-  or  early  fourth-century. 

Fig.  25.— COARSE  POTTERY  FROM  SECTION  I,  1938. 

22-29.  From  the  sleeper -trench  beneath  the  rampart-bank. 

22.  Carinated  bowl  with  reeded  rim.  Buff.  Cf.  Malton,  fig.  15, 
11  (Flavian);  Corbridge,  pi.  xi,  6 (90-110  A.D.).  Flavian- 
Traj  anic. 

23.  Bowl  with  double-moulded  upright  rim.  Hard,  pinkish- 
brown,  with  decoration  of  roulette-notchings  on  the  side. 
Cf.  Brough  1936,  fig.  12,  65  (50-110  A.D.);  Wroxeter  /, 
fig.  17,  7 (80-120  A.D.).  Flavian-Trajanic. 

24.  Rustic  ware  jar.  Hard,  dark-grey.  A common  Flavian 
type  which  survives  sporadically  well  into  the  time  of 
Hadrian.  The  high  quality  of  this  vessel,  and  the  vigorous 
decoration,  suggest  a first-century  date. 

25.  As  no.  24. 

26.  Hand-made  beaker.  Fine  grey  clay  with  very  little  grit. 

Mr.  W.  J.  Varley  has  kindly  examined  this  sherd,  and 
writes:  “Its  general  affinities — the  globular  profile, 

everted  lip,  and  internal  bevelling  of  the  rim — are  what  I 
should  describe  as  'provincial  Iron  Age  B\  The  parent 
stock,  as  it  were,  may  ultimately  be  the  bead-rim  ware  of 
Wessex,  but  this  sherd  is  much  more  provincial  and 
primitive.  Closer  parallels  to  form  and  rim  are  found  at 
Frilford  in  Berkshire  (Oxoniensia,  1939,  fig.  7);  Cassington 
in  Oxfordshire  (material  in  the  Ashmolean);  Solsbury  in 
the  Cotswolds  ( Bristol  Univ.  Spel.  Soc.  Proc.,  1935,  p. 
183  ff);  Cholesbury  in  Buckinghamshire  ( J.B.A.A. , xxxix, 
p.  210);  and  Lydney  Park  in  Gloucestershire  ( Lydney , 
fig.  24).  The  nearer  to  Wessex,  the  better  the  ware — 
which  even  in  Oxfordshire  is  burnished — but  the  form  and 
rim  seem  to  point  to  this  kind  of  ancestry”. 


Fig.  25. 

Coarse  Pottery,  1938  (£). 



27.  Jar.  Hard,  grey. 

28.  Narrow-mouthed  jar,  probably  a carinated  bowl.  Hard, 

blue-grey;  decorated  externally  with  burnished  horizontal 
bands.  Carinated  bowls  in  this  fabric  are  fairly  common 
in  the  Flavian  period.  For  the  decoration  cf.  Silchester, 
pi.  lxxii,  173. 

29.  A larger  version  of  no.  28.  The  complete  vessel  may  have 
resembled  Richborough  III,  pi.  xxxvi,  259  (probably  first 
century) . 

30-31.  From  the  sleeper-trench  on  the  berm. 

30.  Narrow-mouthed  jar.  Hard,  grey,  unpolished.  Decorated 

externally  with  horizontal  rilling.  The  decoration  occurs 
on  pre-Roman  pottery  at  Hengistbury  Head  (pi.  xxvi,  9), 
and  on  first-century  Roman  pottery  at  Richborough  [I, 
pi.  xxiv,  52;  II,  pi.  xxxiv,  214).  No  close  parallels  have 
been  found  for  the  shape. 

31.  Mortarium  stamped  CRACILIS.F.  Dirty-yellow  fabric, 
white  and  grey  grit  extending  over  the  flange.  A common 
first-century  type,  e.g.  Malton,  fig.  16,  7;  Newstead,  fig- 
34,  1.  The  same  stamp  occurs  at  Richborough  (I,  p.  87), 
and  London  ( Guildhall  Museum  Catalogue,  p.  102,  617). 

32-42  and  45-49.  From  the  occupation-layer  underneath  the  rampart- 

32.  Cooking-pot.  Black,  fumed;  acute-angled  lattice  decoration 
and  wavy  line  on  the  outer  side  of  the  neck.  This  type  of 
cooking-pot  is  occasionally  found  before  the  time  of 
Hadrian  in  the  north  of  Britain,  and  commonly  on  Hadri- 
anic  sites.  The  wavy  line  on  the  neck  lasts  throughout  the 
Antonine  period  ( Balmuildy , p.  86)  and  into  the  third 
century  ( Corbridge  1936-8,  fig.  7,  14)  but  on  vessels  of 
different  rim-section  from  the  present  example.  Trajan- 

33.  Mortarium.  Pinkish-buff  core,  cream  slip;  sparse  grey  grit. 

34.  Ring-neck  jug.  Buff  core,  cream  slip.  Cf.  fig.  24,  3. 
Hadrian- Antonine . 

35.  Bowl  in  imitation  of  Samian  form  38.  Smooth  orange-red 
surface,  decorated  both  inside  and  out  with  thin  and 
irregular  brush-strokes  in  red  ochre.  This  type  of  ware, 
tentatively  dated  circa  72 — circa  110  A.D.,  has  so  far  been 
found  only  in  Yorkshire  and  is  not  common  there.  Cf. 
Ant.J.,  xiii,  p.  165;  Brough  1937,  fig.  15,  25;  Elmswell, 
fig.  10,  42-7. 

36.  Ring-neck  jug  or  flagon.  Buff  surface,  brick-red  core. 
Cf.  fig.  24,  3.  Hadrian- Antonine. 

37.  Bowl  or  lid.  Hard,  blue-grey  surface,  light-grey  core; 
burnished  horizontal  bands  externally  on  the  rim  and 


internally  on  the  side.  No  published  parallels  have  been 
traced,  but  Mr.  J.  P.  Gillam  informs  me  that  there  is  an 
unpublished  and  undated  example  in  York  Museum. 

38.  Beaker.  Hard  grey,  unsmoothed.  Cf.  Brough  1936,  fig.  10, 
12  (50-110  A.D.). 

39.  As  no.  24. 

40.  Carinated  bowl  with  grooved  lip.  Hard  yellowish-brown, 
smoothed.  A similar  vessel,  in  grey  ware,  from  Appletree 
Turret  (pi.  xvii,  63)  is  thought  to  be  Hadrianic  (A A.,  4th 
series,  vii,  p.  173). 

41.  As  no.  24. 

42.  Jar.  Brick-red,  unsmoothed. 

45.  Mortarium  stamped  VIATOR.  Pinkish-buff  slip,  grey  core. 
For  this  potter,  whose  work  is  tentatively  dated  70-120 
A.D.,  cf.  A A.,  4th  series,  xxvi,  p.  192. 

46.  Flat-rimmed  platter.  Black,  fumed;  lattice  decoration. 
Cf.  fig.  24,  6.  Hadrian-Antonine. 

47.  Dish.  Polished  black  surface,  light-grey  core.  Cf.  Brough 
1936,  fig.  14,  107  (before  110  A.D.);  Slack,  pi.  xxiv,  107-8 
(before  140  A.D.). 

48.  Rim  of  ? amphora.  Reddish-brown  surface,  grey  core.  Cf. 
Verulamium  1938,  fig.  13,  15  (Nero). 

49.  As  no.  48. 

43-44.  From  the  rampart-bank. 

43.  Jar.  Sandy,  coarse  ware.  Cf.  Slack,  pi.  xxiii,  49  (before 
140  A.D.). 

44.  Jar.  Hard,  grey. 

50-59.  From  the  rubbish-tip  overlying  the  rampart-bank. 

50.  Platter  or  bowl.  Black,  fumed;  lattice  decoration.  Cf. 
Corbridge  1936-8,  fig.  8,  3 (162-196  A.D.). 

51.  Mortarium.  Hard  reddish-brown  glaze,  grey  core,  fine 
black  grit.  An  imported  vessel,  probably  made  in  Raetia. 
The  type  occurs  in  the  second  Antonine  period  at  Corbridge, 
and  on  the  Wall  in  the  third  century.  Cf.  A A.,  4th  series, 
xxvi,  p.  194  and  fig.  3.  A close  parallel  to  the  present  rim- 
section  is  found  at  Pfiinz  ( ORL  Pfiinz,  pi.  vii,  6). 

52.  Bowl.  Black,  fumed;  decorated  with  an  undulating  line  in 
place  of  the  normal  lattice  pattern.  Cf.  Corbridge  1936-8, 
fig.  8,  4 (162-196  A.D.). 

53.  Beaker.  Hard  light-grey,  unsmoothed.  Not  closely  dat- 
able, but  for  the  general  shape  cf.  Corbridge  1936-8,  fig.  8, 
7 (162-196  A.D.);  and  Birdoswald,  fig.  15,  37  (third  century). 

As  fig.  24,  9.  Hadrian-Antonine. 



55.  Platter  or  bowl.  Black,  fumed;  lattice  decoration.  Cf. 
Corbridge  1936-8,  fig.  8,  3 (162-196  A.D.);  Birdoswald , fig. 
16,  78  (third  century). 

56.  Platter  with  roll-rim.  Black,  fumed;  decorated  with 
burnished  oblique  lines.  The  type  appears  before  140  A.D. 
at  Slack  (pi.  xxiv)  and  is  common  on  the  Antonine  Wall 
(e.g.  Balmuildy , pi.  xlvii,  10-13).  On  Hadrian’s  Wall  it 
predominates  in  the  third  century  (e.g.  Birdoswald,  fig.  16, 
79-80;  Chapel  House  Milecastle,  pi.  lii,  40). 

57.  As  no.  56. 

58.  Cooking-pot.  Hard,  grey.  Cf.  Bewcastle,  fig.  21,  4 (second 
century);  High  House  Milecastle,  pi.  xviii,  120  (third 

59.  Cooking-pot.  Black,  fumed;  lattice  decoration.  The  vessel 
is  typologically  third  century;  the  rim  leans  well  out,  and 
the  lattice  is  right-angled.  Cf.  Denton  Hall  Turret,  pi.  li,  14; 
Corbridge  1936-8,  fig.  7,  15;  Poltross  Burn,  pi.  iv,  28  (all 
third  century). 

Figs.  22  and  23.— SAMIAN  POTTERY,  1938. 

Report  by  the  late  Dr.  Felix  Oswald,  F.S.A. 

1-4.  Section  I.  From  the  occupation-layer  underneath  the  rampart- 

1.  Form  37.  Low  rim  with  ovolo  and  three-pronged  tongue 
typical  of  MERCATOR  of  La  Graufesenque  and  Banassac. 
Domitianic,  80-90  A.D. 

2.  Form  37.  Lower  part  showing  S-godroons.  South  Gaulish 
and  Vespasianic,  70-80  A.D. 

3.  Form  37,  good  glaze  and  sharp  impression.  Bear  to  right  (a 
variant  of  0.1590)  in  a festoon,  as  on  a form  37  of  IANVARIS 
from  London  (Guildhall  Museum)  with  the  same  ovolo.  The 
same  ovolo  also  on  a form  37  stamped  IANVARISO  from 
Lezoux  (Oswald  collection).  IANVARIS  of  Lezoux,  circa 
120-125  A.D. 

4.  Form  37.  Panther  to  left  (0.1561  drawn  from  imperfect 
specimens),  a Heiligenberg  type  on  a form  37  in  the  style  of 
I AN  VS  ( Forrer , fig.  76).  A rosette  on  a cable  as  so  often  on 
IANVS  bowls.  To  the  right  of  the  panther  is  still  a remnant 
of  his  stamp  IANVF — the  base  of  the  I and  A.  By  IANVS 
of  Heiligenberg,  circa  125-130  A.D. 

5-9.  Section  I.  From  the  rampart-bank. 

5.  Form  37.  Buff  paste  and  orange  glaze,  with  fine  bead-row 
below  the  ovolo.  A Hercules  (unknown  type)  with  lion-head 
and  paws,  probably  by  BIRRANTVS.  Trajanic,  circa 

110-120  A.D. 


6.  Form  37.  Buff  paste  and  orange  glaze.  Pan  to  right  (0.717); 
vertical  rings  bounded  by  fine  bead-rows  in  the  style  of 
IOENALIS.  Trajanic,  circa  110-120  A.D. 

7.  Form  37  by  ATTIANVS  of  Lezoux.  Identifiable  by  the  four 
leaves  on  a crown  and  the  tripartite  pendant,  which  occur 
together  on  a form  37  OF  ATT  retro  from  London  (Guildhall 
Museum);  the  pendant  on  a form  37  OF  ATT  retro  from 
Corbridge;  and  the  four  leaves  on  a crown  on  a form  37 
ATTIANVS  retro  from  Lezoux  (Oswald-Plicque  collection). 
Circa  120-130  A.D. 

8.  Form  37,  stamped  ALBVCI.  Cupid  with  torches  (0.450)  in 
a panel;  Cupid  seated  (0.440)  in  a festoon.  His  characteristic 
bead-rows.  Rather  blurred  impression.  Lezoux  ware,  circa 
120-130  A.D. 

9.  Form  37,  good  glaze.  Ovolo  blurred  and  insufficient  to 
identify,  above  a wavy  line.  Probably  Flavian  and  South 
Gaulish,  circa  70-80  A.D. 

10.  Section  I.  From  the  sandy-clay  layer  between  the  first  and 
second  ditches. 

Form  37.  Ovolo  used  by  CENSORINVS  of  Lezoux  above  an 
astragalus  border  characteristic  of  his  work.  Forepart  of  lion 
to  left  (0.1426)  in  a festoon  of  chevron-leaves;  vertical  bead- 
row  forming  panels;  small  warrior  to  left  (0.215).  CEN- 
SORINVS of  Lezoux,  circa  120-130  A.D. 

11.  Site  G.  On  the  surface  of  road  III  at  the  south  end  of  the  tank. 
Form  37  by  CINNAMVS  of  Lezoux.  Ovolo  of  CINNAMVS. 
Large  scroll  enclosing  a medallion  with  vine-leaf.  In  the 
upper  concavity  of  the  scroll  two  stalked  leaves  are  given  off 
from  the  scroll,  one  heart-shaped,  the  other  a vine-leaf, 
exactly  as  on  the  form  37  stamped  CINNAMI  retro  from 
Newstead  (p.  225,  7),  and  on  a form  37  with  the  same  stamp 
from  London  (London  Museum).  Rings  also  as  so  often  on 
his  bowls.  Circa  130-140  A.D. 

12.  {Fig.  23).  Section  1.  From  the  ramfiart-bank. 

Form  37.  The  large  rosette  in  the  medallion  {Ludowici,  v, 
p.  100,  79)  is  only  used  by  IANVS  at  Rheinzabern.  His 
ovolo  ( Ludowici , v,  p.  147,  92),  pinnate-leaf  ( Ludowici , v, 
p.  106,  237),  cable  and  rosettes  on  a vertical  cable  ( Ludowici , 
v,  p.  103,  151),  and  his  characteristic  medallion  {Ludowici, 
v,  p.  134,  116).  IANVS  of  Rheinzabern,  circa  130-140  A.D. 

Fig.  26.— SMALL  FINDS,  1937-8. 

1-3.  From  the  occupation- floor  of  the  hut  at  the  back  of  the  Angle- 
Tower,  1937. 

1.  Bronze  needle. 

2.  Bone  needle.  Square-cut  head,  eye  made  by  two  intersecting 
circular  holes.  Cf.  Leicester,  fig.  91,  5-6. 

Fig.  26. 

Small  finds  1937-8. 

■I  INS 


3.  Bone  needle.  Long  pointed  head,  round  eye.  Cf.  Leicester, 
fig.  91,  1. 

4-8.  Unstratified,  1938. 

4.  Bone  pin.  Head  pointed  with  two  grooves  round  it.  Cf. 
Leicester,  fig.  90,  1. 

5.  Bone  pin.  Spherical  head.  Cf.  Leicester,  fig.  90,  8. 

6.  Bone  pin.  Flattened  spherical  head,  shaft  swelling  in  the 
centre.  Cf.  Leicester,  fig.  90,  7. 

7.  Bone  pin.  Bulbous  pointed  head  decorated  with  vertical 
grooves.  Cf.  Lydney,  pi.  xxxii,  173. 

8.  Bone  pin.  Spherical  head  with  one  ring  beneath  it.  Cf. 
Leicester,  fig.  90,  10. 

9.  From  the  filling  of  the  Angle-Tower , 1937. 

Bronze  pin.  Ornamented  on  the  head  and  the  upper  part  of 
the  shaft  with  ring-mouldings  and  grooves. 

10.  From  the  rubbish  overlying  the  rampart-bank,  Section  I 1938. 
Bone  spoon. 

11.  Unstratified,  1938. 

Bronze  terminal  for  a strap.  For  an  account  of  these  objects 
cf.  Richborough  II,  pi.  xxi,  50. 

12.  From  the  occupation  material  beneath  the  rampart-bank, 
Section  I 1938. 

Bronze  ear-pick. 

13.  From  the  rubbish  overlying  the  rampart-bank,  Section  I 1938. 
Bronze  pendant  consisting  of  an  open-work  triskele  which  is 
attached  by  three  converging  struts  to  a moulded  collar 
surmounted  by  a small  suspension-ring.  No  exact  parallel 
has  been  traced,  but  similar  open-work  discs  mostly  decorated 
with  the  triskele  and  mounted  either  directly  on  to  the 
suspension-ring  or  on  to  a long  central  shank  have  been 
found  in  Berkshire  (Leeds,  Celtic  Ornament,  fig.  21c),  at 
Kingsholm  in  Gloucestershire  (Douglas,  Nenia  Britannica, 
pi.  xxvii,  1),  and  in  the  native  hill-forts  at  Seamill,  Ayrshire 
(Historical  Collections  of  Ayr  and  Wigton,  iii,  p.  63,  fig.  3), 
Tre’r  Ceiri  (Archaeologia  Cambrensis,  1904,  p.  8,  fig.  5),  and 
Hunsbury  (Archaeological  Journal,  xciii,  pi.  vib).  The  two 
from  Hunsbury  are  each  attached  by  the  suspension-ring  to 
an  open  ring  of  the  same  diameter  as  the  disc,  while  the 
Berkshire  example  is  similarly  attached  to  one  of  two  inter- 
locked rings.  The  Kingsholm  example,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  hooked  on  to  a metal  arm.  Although  the  precise  use  of 
these  objects  is  unknown,  it  seems  probable  that  they  are 
some  form  of  horse-trapping.  The  sizes  of  the  larger  examples 
precludes  their  interpretation  as  personal  ornaments  (the 
Hunsbury  discs  are  3 inches  in  diameter,  and  the  shanks  4J 
inches  long)  and,  since  the  triskele  is  invisible  when  suspended 
at  rest,  they  were  obviously  intended  to  be  seen  in  motion. 



Fig.  27. 

Section  III  1935.  Deposit  in  ditch  under  lateral  bastion  (lower  level). 


14.  From  the  filling  of  the  Angle-Tower,  1937. 

Carnelian  intaglio  showing  a cock  drawing  a chariot  driven 
by  a hare.  The  same  subject  occurs  on  an  intaglio  in  the 
British  Museum  collection  (Walters,  Catalogue  of  the  Engraved 
Gems  ...  in  the  British  Museum,  no.  2427). 

15.  Found  with  a male  skeleton  outside  the  town  wall,  1937. 

Single-bladed  tanged  iron  knife.  A common  type  not  suffi- 
ciently distinctive  for  dating  purposes.  A similar  example 
from  Aldborough  is  illustrated  by  Ecroyd  Smith  (pi.  xxvi,  7), 
and  an  identical  specimen  was  found  in  an  Anglian  cemetery 
at  Howick,  Northumberland  (A A,  4th  series,  xvi,  pi.  xvi,  5). 

GLASS,  1937. 

By  D.  B.  Harden,  F.S.A. 

From  the  occupation-floor  of  the  hut  built  against  the  back  wall  of 

the  Angle-Tower. 

1.  Fragment  of  the  side  of  a bluish-green  bottle,  chipped  roughly 
to  disc -shape  for  use  as  a gaming-counter.  I can  quote  no 
parallels  to  this  chipping  of  glass  for  gaming-counters,  but  I 
have  no  doubt  that  it  was  a common  practice.  One  frequently 
finds  fragments  of  glass  vessels  with  an  edge  neatly  chipped 
off  for  re-use  [cf.  Harden,  Roman  Glass  from  Karanis,  p.  85, 
no.  176,  pi.  xii;  Oxoniensia,  i,  p.  64,  no.  G.5  and  fig.  12,  6 
[not  5)]. 

2.  Two  fragments  of  a colourless  cylindrical  beaker  with  raised 
horizontal  thread.  Type  as  Harden,  Karanis,  p.  144,  no.  372, 
pi.  xiv.  Second-third  centuries  A.D. 

3.  Two  fragments  of  the  rim  of  a bluish-green  deep  bowl.  Type 
as  Harden,  Karanis,  p.  109,  no.  242,  pi.  xiv  (but  rim  folded 
outwards  not  inwards).  ? Second-third  centuries  A.D. 

4.  Fragment  of  the  neck  of  a bluish-green  unguentarium  or  bottle. 

5.  Five  fragments  of  the  base-ring  of  a deep  bowl,  colourless 
glass,  strain-cracked;  pushed-in  type  of  base.  Cf.  Harden, 
Karanis,  p.  109,  no.  245,  pi.  xiv;  Oxoniensia,  i,  p.  64,  no.  G.6 
and  fig.  12,  5 (not  6). 

[Thanks  are  due  to  (i)  Mr.  H.  Richardson  of  York  who  has 
numbered  and  arranged  many  of  the  pottery  drawings  in  this 
paper.  (ii)  The  Council  for  British  Archaeology  without  whose 
generous  grant  this  paper  could  not  have  been  published,  (iii) 
The  Roman  Antiquities  Committee  of  the  Yorkshire  Archaeo- 
logical Society  which  has  assisted  the  publication  of  this  paper 
with  a grant  and  by  undertaking  to  shoulder  the  cost  of  some  of 
the  blocks.  Editor.] 



By  Sir  Charles  Clay,  C.B.,  F.B.A. 

In  volume  xi  (pp.  174-88)  of  this  Journal,  issued  in  1891, 
Mr.  William  Brown  printed  the  texts,  though  without  the  names 
of  the  justices,  of  twenty-eight  final  concords  for  Yorkshire  levied 
in  the  reign  of  Richard  I from  two  bundles  in  the  Public  Record 
Office.  The  two  which  are  dated  before  15  July  1195  are  of 
bipartite  chirographs,  and  the  remainder  include  documents  which 
came  to  be  known  as  feet  of  fines.  On  that  day  a final  concord 
was  drawn  up,  on  which  an  endorsement  was  added  on  the 
following  day  stating  that  it  was  the  first  chirograph  in  the  king’s 
court  made  in  the  form  of  three  chirographs,  of  which  one  was  to 
remain  in  the  treasury  to  serve  as  a record;  and  thereafter  the 
portion  preserved  in  the  treasury  became  known  as  the  Toot’  of 
the  fine.1 

Since  1891  printed  material  has  become  available  to  provide 
some  final  concords  for  Yorkshire  of  the  time  of  Richard  I which 
can  be  added  to  those  given  in  Mr.  Brown’s  paper.  These,  which 
can  doubtless  be  augmented  from  other  sources,  include  the 
following  : 

27  Jan.  1190-1.  Kg’s  court  at  Northampton;  toft  in  Hun- 
manby,  and  rent  from  land  in  Folkingham,  co.  Lincoln 
(. E.Y.C. , ii,  no.  1194). 

11  July  1192.  Kg’s  court  at  York;  advowson  of  chapel  of 
Wold  Newton  (ibid.,  no.  1205). 

21  Aug.  1192.  Kg’s  court  at  York;  land  in  Ganton  (Brid- 
lington Chartulary , p.  137). 

2 Oct.  1194.  Kg’s  court  at  York;  land  in  Flamborough 
(Rolls  of  the  Justices,  Yorks,  Selden  Soc.  vol.  lvi,  nos.  149, 

18  June  1195.  York;2  land  in  Thorpe  Underwood,  Caldwell, 
etc.  (Fountains  Chartulary , ii,  717). 

In  1897  Mr.  Brown  edited  the  Yorkshire  final  concords  for 
the  reign  of  John,  from  the  feet  of  fines  preserved  in  the  Public 
Record  Office,  for  vol.  94  of  the  publications  of  the  Surtees  Society; 
and  in  an  appendix  to  his  introduction  a list  of  justices  is  given, 
showing  which  of  them  were  present  at  each  of  the  four  hundred 
and  eighty-two  fines  printed.  Full  abstracts  of  the  Yorkshire  feet 
of  fines  for  the  period  1218  to  1300  have  been  printed  in  the 
publications  of  the  Yorkshire  Record  Series,  vols.  62,  67,  82,  121; 

1 Pollock  and  Maitland,  Hist.  Eng.  Law,  2nd  ed.,  ii,  97.  The  text  of 
the  endorsement,  given  there,  had  been  pd.  in  Feet  of  Fines,  Henry  TI  and 
Richard  I,  Pipe  Roll  Soc.,  O.S.,  xvii,  21. 

2 Presumably  in  kg’s  court,  the  justices  being  named. 


and  shorter  abstracts  for  the  period  1327-77  in  vols.  42  and  52. 
Lists  of  the  fines  covering  the  period  1486-1603  were  printed  in 
vols.  2,  5,  7 and  8.  It  is  hoped  that  the  gaps  for  the  periods  1301-27 
and  1378-1485  will  be  filled  in  the  future. 

No  attempt,  however,  has  been  made  to  collect  the  York- 
shire final  concords  for  the  reign  of  Henry  II;  and  the  twenty-one 
calendared  in  the  present  paper  will  form  a nucleus.  Two  (nos.  2 
and  10)  are  originals,  that  is  to  say  an  original  portion  of  the 
bipartite  chirograph;  and  the  full  texts  of  all  are  available  except 
of  nos.  8,  9,  11  and  18. 

With  the  exception  of  two  all  have  the  initial  description  of 
finalis  concordia.  Of  these  no.  9 has  the  abbreviated  description 
of  finis;  and  the  printed  text  of  no.  2,  an  original  in  poor  condition, 
gives  finis  et  concordia.  It  can  be  deduced  that  the  descriptive 
finalis  concordia,  the  invariable  formula  of  later  instruments,  had 
become  usual  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II.  Indeed,  this  can  be  seen 
in  several  final  concords  of  the  period  for  other  counties  which 
are  available.  Thus  all  the  four  printed  from  the  Public  Record 
Office  files  by  the  Pipe  Roll  Society,1  and  eight  of  the  nine  relating 
to  Bury  St.  Edmunds  in  the  period  1175-88,  printed  by  Professor 
Douglas,2  have  this  description.  So  also  have  the  three,  dated 
in  1175  and  1176,  which  Round  printed  in  his  paper3  ‘The  First 
Known  Fine  (1175)’;  and,  even  more  to  the  point,  Mr.  Salzman 
printed  the  text  of  a finalis  concordia  in  the  king’s  court  before 
the  king  himself  at  Northampton  in  1163,  and  showed  that  the 
general  character  of  the  final  concord  had  been  established  by 
that  date.4 

This  general  character  can  be  seen  in  the  formulas  in  the 
final  concord  of  1188  printed  here  in  the  appendix.  It  is  a finalis 
concordia;  the  place  of  the  king’s  court  with  the  date  and  the 
names  of  the  judges  are  given;  then  the  parties  to  the  agreement; 
a reference  to  previous  legal  proceedings;  the  method  and  terms 
of  the  agreement,  in  this  instance  by  a quitclaim,  introduced  by 
the  words  scilicet  quod;  and  lastly  a payment  made  by  the  party 
receiving  the  quitclaim. 

In  this  collection  of  twenty-one  these  features  can  generally 
be  observed,  with  differences  due  to  varying  circumstances. 
Thirteen  of  them  were  made  at  York,  three  at  Doncaster,  four  at 
Westminster  and  one  at  Oxford.  The  names  of  the  judges  are 
always  given  except  in  no.  11,  which  was  made  before  the  sheriff 

1 Vol.  xvii  (1894). 

2 Feudal  Documents  from  the  Abbey  of  Bury  St.  Edmunds,  Brit.  Academy, 
nos.  224-32;  the  remaining  one,  no.  226,  has  the  words  ‘hie  est  finus  factus 
in  curia  domini  regis’,  which  may  be  an  abbreviation  made  by  the  trans- 

3 Feudal  England,  pp.  509-18;  the  third,  an  original,  Cotton  Ch.  xi, 
73,  has  since  been  pd.  with  facsimile  in  Warner  and  Ellis,  Charters  in  the 
British  Museum,  no.  55. 

4 E.H.R.,  xxv  (1910),  pp.  708-10;  the  text  is  from  Curia  Reg.  Roll  72, 
m.  10,  pd.  more  recently  in  Curia  Regis  Rolls , x,  334,  from  Curia  Reg.  Roll 
81,  m.  11. 


and  county  court.  In  no  less  than  fourteen  one  of  the  parties  was 
a monastic  body;  in  one  the  dean  and  chapter  of  York;  in  six 
both  the  parties  were  lay  folk.  In  almost  all  of  them  a reference 
is  made  to  prior  proceedings;  sometimes,  in  general  terms,  to  a 
plea  or  recognition  in  the  king’s  court  or  by  the  king’s  writ;  in 
no.  16  a mort  d’ancestor  is  specified;  in  nos.  17  and  18  a novel 
disseisin;  in  no.  20  a writ  of  right;  in  no.  7,  more  precisely,  ‘unde 
predicti  canonici  posuerunt  se  in  assisam  de  Windlesor’  utrum  illi 
an  predictus  Thomas  majus  jus  in  terram  illam  haberet’;  and  in 
no.  8 ‘unde  bellum  fuit  inter  eos  in  comitatu  Eboraci’.  The  clause 
in  no.  13  seems  to  suggest  that  the  writ  quare  impedit  in  a dispute 
for  the  presentation  of  a rector  was  in  existence  in  1186.1  The 
circumstances  leading  to  no.  5 are  unusual.  William  son  of  Alan 
de  Percy  was  illegitimate.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  have 
supported  a claim  to  Gargrave — that  is  to  say  the  Percy  portion 
of  the  vill — partly  because  of  his  illegitimacy,  and  partly  because 
whatever  had  been  held  in  Gargrave  by  William  de  Percy,  the 
lord  of  the  fee,  who  died  in  1174-75,  was  included  in  the  share  of 
Jocelin  of  Louvain,  then  husband  of  Agnes  de  Percy,  one  of 
William  de  Percy’s  two  daughters  and  coheirs,  in  the  partition 
made  in  11 75. 2 No  reference  is  made  in  this  final  concord  to 
proceedings  in  the  courts;  and  it  is  possible  that  it  affords  an 
example  of  a fictitious  suit  leading  thereto.  In  this  connexion  a 
recent  writer3  has  stated  that  although  it  is  clear  “that  the  final 
concord  had  its  origin  in  real  litigation  ....  examples  of  fictitious 
litigation  can  ...  be  found  among  the  very  early  fines.” 

The  terms  of  the  settlement  in  fourteen  of  the  twenty-one 
took  the  form  of  a quitclaim.  Pasture  disputes  were  settled  in 
nos.  3 and  17;  cases  of  obstruction  in  nos.  6 and  19;  the  arrange- 
ments for  the  tenure  of  a rectory,  in  which  a religious  house  had 
an  interest,  in  no.  10;  and  a dispute  about  land  in  no.  11,  one 
party  enfeoffing  the  other  in  a moiety.  In  only  seven  is  a payment 
recorded  by  one  of  the  parties.  These  payments  vary  between 
15  marks,  20  marks,  10  marks  and  a horse  priced  10s.,  60s.,  half 
a mark,  and  10s.;  in  one  the  lay  claimant  to  an  advowson  was 
received  into  the  benefits  and  prayers  of  a religious  house. 

None  of  these  final  concords  have  a list  of  witnesses.  Indeed, 
it  appears  that  generally  speaking  the  inclusion  of  witnesses 
shows  that  the  instrument  cannot  be  classified  as  a final  concord 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  An  agreement  made  in  the  county 
court  at  York  in  1184  has  several  witnesses;4  it  is  described  as  a 
concordia,  and  not  a finalis  concordia;  and  it  has  not  been  included 
in  the  calendar  given  below.  Similarly  another  made  there  in 
1198,  with  witnesses,5  has  the  same  description.  Exceptionally,  a 

1 For  so  early  a date  for  this  writ,  and  earlier  than  the  thirteenth 
century,  cf.  Pollock  and  Maitland,  Hist.  Eng.  Law,  2nd  ed.,  ii,  139w. 

2 Percy  Chartulary , p.  463;  Complete  Peerage,  new  ed.,  x,  pp.  442  et  seq. 

3 Mrs.  M.  S.  Walker  in  her  introduction  to  Feet  of  Fines,  Lines.,  1199- 
1216  (Pipe  Roll  Soc.,  N.S.,  vol.  xxix),  p.  xv. 

4 E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1779,  from  the  Pontefract  Chartulary. 

5 Fountains  Chartulary,  i,  263;  Add.  MS.  40009,  p.  186. 


finalis  concordia  made  in  the  court  of  Adam  de  Brus  in  1197, 
though  not  of  the  stereotyped  pattern  of  final  concords  made  in 
the  king’s  court,  has  a list  of  witnesses.1 

In  no.  10,  one  of  the  originals,  the  equestrian  seal  of  Peter 
son  of  Grent  was  attached  to  this  part  of  the  chirograph,  which 
presumably  remained  with  the  prior  of  Bolton;  and  in  no.  19 
there  is  a definite  sealing  clause,  stating  that  the  seals  of  the 
parties  were  attached  to  either  part  of  the  chirograph.  It  is  not 
unlikely  that  the  attachment  of  a seal  was  unusual,  and  certainly 
so  at  a later  date.  In  a case  heard  in  England  in  1212  between 
two  members  of  the  Bohun  family2  it  was  stated  that  they  had 
put  their  seals  to  either  part  of  the  chirograph,  the  text  being 
given  of  a finalis  concordia  made  in  the  king’s  court  in  Normandy 
in  1199;  and  in  the  pleadings  it  was  suggested  that  sealing  was  an 
unusual  feature  of  chirographs  made  in  the  king’s  court.  There 
is  no  trace  of  a seal  in  the  facsimile  of  the  final  concord  of  1176, 
Cotton  Ch.  xi,  73,  to  which  reference  has  been  made  above.  But 
sealing  had  its  authoritative  uses.  It  is  not  unusual  to  find  that 
when  final  concords  were  made  charters,  presumably  sealed,  with 
witnesses,  were  issued  at  the  same  time,  giving  the  identical  terms 
of  the  agreement.  Thus  Adam  de  Boltby  drew  up  a charter 
recording  the  precise  terms  of  a final  concord  made  at  Doncaster 
before  the  king’s  justices  (no.  3);  and  this  was  read  before  them.3 
Again,  Warin  Travers  issued  a charter  to  Easby  abbey  4 when  a 
final  concord  had  settled  his  dispute  with  the  canons  (no.  12); 
and  Philip  de  Eryholme  one  to  St.  Mary’s  abbey5  before  the  same 
justices  who  had  presided  at  the  final  concord  (no.  15).  There 
must  have  been  some  reason,  perhaps  of  a cautionary  nature,  for 
this  duplication. 

It  will  have  been  noticed  that  the  procedure  of  the  final 
concord,  having  undoubtedly  taken  its  origin  in  the  king’s  court, 
was  adopted  by  the  county  and  baronial  courts,  though  with 
variations  of  pattern.  Some  examples,  made  in  the  county  court 
at  York,  have  been  given  above;  and,  besides  the  finalis  concordia 
made  in  the  court  of  Adam  de  Brus  in  1197,  there  are  records  of 
two  made  in  the  courts  of  Roger  de  Lascy,  one  in  1195-96  and  the 
other  in  1201,  the  latter,  but  not  the  former,  having  the  feature 
of  a list  of  witnesses.6  Local  examples  show  that  the  stereotyped 
character  of  the  final  concord  made  before  the  king’s  justices, 
dating  back  to  the  early  years  of  Henry  II,  had  not  been  adopted 
in  its  entirety.7 

1 Guisborough  Chavtulary,  i,  no.  482. 

2 Curia  Regis  Rolls,  vi,  397-9. 

3 E.Y.C.,  ix,  no.  92.  4 Ibid.,  v,  p.  74 n. 

5 Ibid.,  no.  148. 

6 Ibid.,  iii,  nos.  1524,  1526. 

7 My  thanks  are  due  to  Lady  Stenton  for  her  help  in  some  relevant 
points,  and  for  her  kindness  in  giving  me  the  reference  to  no.  18  and  the 

alternate  reference  to  no.  8. 




1.  17  Sept.  1172.  In  the  king’s  court  at  Oxford;  before  Richard 
de  Lucy,  Richard  de  Camville,  Bertram  de  Verdon,  Hugh 
de  Morwick,  Richard  Barre,  Richard  Breton,  William  Torel, 
William  son  of  Ralph,  justices.  Between  Clement,  abbot,  and 
the  monks  of  St.  Mary’s,  York,  and  Robert  son  of  Ralph  de 
Rudston,  for  the  advowson  of  the  church  of  Rudston,  whereof 
a recognition  had  been  summoned  between  them  by  the  king’s 
writ.  The  latter  recognized  the  former’s  right  to  the  advowson, 
and  quitclaimed  it,  being  received  into  their  benefits  and 

Text  pd.  in  Rolls  of  the  Justices,  Yorks.  (Selden  Soc.  vol.  lvi),  no. 
246,  from  Assize  Roll  1040,  m.  8d,  and  no.  1126,  from  Assize  Roll 
1041,  m.  2, 1 recording  an  assize  of  darrein  presentment  brought  by  John 
de  Rudston  against  the  abbot  of  St.  Mary’s  and  others  in  the  eyre  of 
1218-19;  previously  pd.  in  E.H.R.,  xxv,  709,  from  the  latter  text,  and 
in  E.Y.C.,  i,  no.  454,  from  the  former. 

The  pleadings  in  the  assize  proceedings  refer  to  the  gift  by  William 
Peverel  to  the  abbey  of  8 carucates  of  land  in  Rudston  with  the  advowson 
of  the  church,  and  the  confirmation  thereof  by  king  Henry  I,  2 and  also  to 
an  assize  of  darrein  presentment  leading  to  this  final  concord  of  1172,  and 
then  to  another  assize  of  darrein  presentment  brought  by  William  father  of 
John  de  Rudston  (the  plaintiff  in  1218-19),  leading  to  another  concord 
before  the  same  justices. 

This  final  concord  is  cited  in  notes  on  the  Rudston  family  in  E.Y.C., 
vi,  p.  140.  Robert  de  Rudston  held  a knight’s  fee  in  Rudston  of  Robert  de 
Gant,  as  of  the  Paynel  fee,  in  1 166,  Ralph  Paynel  having  held  a second 
manor  of  8 carucates  there  in  1086  {ibid.,  pp.  139-40). 

2.  24  Sept.  1176.  At  York,  before  Ranulf  de  Glanville  and 
Robert  Pikenot,  king’s  justices,  and  Henry  de  Lascy,  Robert 
de  Stuteville,  William  de  Lancaster,  Robert  son  of  Ralph  and 
William  de  Stuteville  and  other  barons  of  the  king.  Between 
Duncan  Darel,  and  Geoffrey  de  Brettanby  ( Bertanebi ) and 
Avice  daughter  of  his  uncle,  for  the  land  of  Dicton’  [Deighton, 
par.  Escrick],  whereof  there  was  a plea  between  them  by  the 
king’s  writ.  The  latter  quitclaimed  the  land  to  Duncan  Darel 
and  his  heirs,  to  hold  it  of  the  abbot  of  St.  Mary’s  York  by 
the  service  belonging  thereto;  and  Duncan  gave  to  them  15 

Text  pd.  in  Yorks.  Deeds,  ii,  p.  vi,  from  the  original  preserved  at 
Escrick  manor  in  1914. 

Eudo  the  marshal,  an  under-tenant  of  the  honour  of  Richmond,  gave 
his  service  and  lordship  in  the  vill  of  Deighton  to  St.  Mary’s  abbey;  and  abbot 
Clement  (1161-84)  granted  the  vill  to  Duncan  son  of  Thomas  Darel  for 
20s.  yearly  rent  (E.Y.C.,  v,  no.  222  and  note).  Further  details  for  the 
connexion  of  Duncan  Darel,  who  died  in  1202-03,  with  Deighton  are  given 
in  ibid.,  no.  225  and  note. 

3.  8 Sept.  1178.  At  Doncaster,  before  Hugh  Murdac,  John 
Cumin,  John  son  of  Lucas,  Ranulf  de  Glanville,  Bertram  de 
Verdon,  William  son  of  Aldelin,  Michael  Belet,  William  de 

1 Concordia  in  the  first  text,  and  finalis  concordia  in  the  second. 

2 These  are  the  subject  of  charters  pd.  in  E.Y.C.,  i,  nos.  452-3. 


Bendinges  and  Robert  Poher,  king’s  justices.  Between  the 
monks  of  Rievaulx  and  Adam  de  Boltby  for  the  pasture  of 
Boltby,  Ravensthorpe  and  Thirlby,  whereof  there  was  a plea 
between  them.  Adam  confirmed  to  the  monks  all  the  land 
given  by  his  father  in  Boltby,  and  granted  pasture  in  those 
places  for  400  sheep  and  other  animals  specified  in  detail, 
with  easements  throughout  his  wood. 

Text  pd.  in  E.Y.C.,  ix,  no.  91,  from  Rievaulx  Chartulary,  Cotton 
MS.  Julius  D.  i,  f.  68v  (old  f.  64v);  and  previously  in  Rievaulx  Chartulary, 
no.  112,  where  the  date  xxxiiij  Henry  II  (1188)  is  given  in  error. 

Adam  son  of  Odo  de  Boltby  held  a knight’s  fee,  consisting  of  10 
carucates  in  Boltby,  Ravensthorpe  and  Thirlby,  all  in  par.  Felixkirk,  and 
Borrowby,  par.  Leake,  of  Robert  de  Stuteville  in  1166  (E.Y.C.,  ix,  p.  160, 
where  notes  on  the  Boltby  family  are  given). 

4.  19  July  1182.  In  the  king’s  court  at  York,  before  Thomas  son 
of  Bernard,  Alan  de  Furnellis  and  Robert  de  Witefeld,  king’s 
justices,  and  other  barons.  Between  Richard  de  Newby  and 
Agnes  de  Percy  for  half  a carucate  of  land  in  Dalton  [par. 
Topcliffe],  whereof  a recognition  had  been  summoned  between 
them  in  the  king’s  court.  The  former  quitclaimed  it  to  the 
latter  and  her  heirs  for  12s.  yearly  rent  from  the  farm  payable 
to  her  by  the  monks  of  Fountains  for  the  grange  of  Marton 
[le  Moor,  par.  Kirby  Hill];  warranty  by  both,  and  Richard 
would  do  the  forinsec  service  for  the  half  carucate  on  the 
basis  of  12  carucates  to  a knight’s  fee;  the  monks  would  pay 
the  12s.  direct  to  him  and  his  heirs. 

Text  pd.  in  Percy  Chartulary,  no.  22;  translation  in  Fountains 
Chartulary,  ii,  489,  from  B.M.  Add.  MS.  37770,  p.  430. 

William  de  Percy  confirmed  to  Fountains  abbey  the  site  of  the  grange 
of  Marton  and  other  land  there  at  a yearly  rent  of  20s.  to  him  and  his  heirs; 
Agnes,  his  daughter  and  coheir,  assigned  12s.,  of  this  to  Richard  de  Newby, 
retaining  the  balance  of  8s.  ( Fountains  Chartulary,  ii,  487-9). 

5.  20  July  1182.  In  the  king’s  court  at  York,  before  the  same. 
Between  Agnes  de  Percy  and  her  nephew  William  son  of  Alan 
de  Percy;  she  gave  him  100s.  rent  of  land,  being  6 bovates  in 
Beamsley,  7 bovates  in  Asenby  [par.  Topcliffe]  and  4 bovates 
in  Litton  [in  Craven],  with  specified  stock,  in  return  for  his 
claim  for  Gargrave,  doing  the  service  to  her  and  her  heirs  for 
a third  of  a knight’s  fee;  the  land  was  to  revert  to  her  if  as 
the  result  of  an  escheat  yielding  a rent  of  10 li.  or  12 li.  she 
provided  him  with  a wife. 

Text  pd.  in  Percy  Chartulary,  no.  41. 

Alan  de  Percy  was  the  son  of  William  de  Percy  and  died  v.p.,  his 
sisters  Maud  and  Agnes  becoming  their  father’s  coheirs.  If  William  son 
of  Alan  had  been  legitimate  he  would  have  inherited  the  whole  of  the  Percy 
fee  ( Complete  Peerage,  new  ed.,  x,  444  and  note).  The  Percy  portion  of 
Gargrave  had  been  included  in  the  share  of  Jocelin  of  Louvain,  then 
husband  of  Agnes,  in  1175  ( Percy  Chartulary,  p.  463). 

6.  20  July  1182.  In  the  king's  court  at  York,  before  the  same. 
Between  the  monks  of  Fountains  and  John  son  of  Fulk  in 
respect  of  a dike  which  he  had  made  before  the  gate  of  the 



grange  of  Hammerton  and  of  the  land  which  he  had  ploughed 
between  the  gate  and  the  road,  whereof  a recognition  had 
been  summoned  between  them  in  the  king’s  court.  He  levelled 
the  dike  and  restored  the  ploughed  land  to  common  pasture, 
the  road  remaining  of  the  same  width  as  of  old. 

Text  pd.  in  Fountains  Chartulary,  i,  342 n,  from  B.M.  Add.  MS. 
40009,  p.  473;  and  in  E.Y.C.,  ii,  no.  738,  from  Add.  MS.  18276,  f.  88y 
where  the  date  xviii  Henry  II  (1172)  is  given  in  error. 

Notes  on  John  son  of  Fulk,  the  ancestor  of  the  Hammerton  family, 
and  his  descendants  are  given  in  E.Y.C.,  ii,  p.  81. 

7.  16  Oct.  1182.  In  the  king’s  court  at  Westminster  at  the 
Michaelmas  exchequer,  before  Richard  bishop  of  Winchester, 
Geoffrey  bishop  of  Ely,  John  bishop  of  Norwich,  Ranulf  de 
Glanville,  Richard  the  treasurer,  Godfrey  de  Lucy,  William 
Mauduit,  William  Basset,  Alan  de  Furnellis,  Robert  de  Witefeld 
and  Rainald  de  Geddinges,  king’s  justices,  and  other  lieges. 
Between  the  canons  of  Bridlington  and  Thomas  de  Alost  for 
the  vill  of  Speeton,  whereof  the  canons  had  put  themselves 
on  the  assize  of  Windsor,1  whether  they  or  he  had  the  greater 
right.  Thomas  quitclaimed  the  vill  to  them  for  a carucate  of 
land  in  Fraisthorpe,  to  hold  of  them  for  a yearly  rent  of  2s. 
of  silver;  and  they  gave  to  him  20  marks  of  silver. 

Text  pd.  in  E.Y.C.,  ii,  no.  1220,  from  Bridlington  Chartulary, 
B.M.  Add.  MS.  40008,  f.  32;  translation  in  Bridlington  Chartulary,  p.  41. 

Gilbert  de  Gant  gave  3 carucates  in  Speeton  to  Bridlington  priory, 
1147-56  ( E.Y.C. , ii,  no.  1219);  and  Roger  de  Mowbray  gave  a carucate  in 
Fraisthorpe  not  later  than  1153  ( Bridlington  Chartulary,  pp.  206,  435). 
These  were  portions  of  the  total  D.B.  assessments  of  10  and  9 carucates 
respectively  ( V.C.H . Yorks.,  ii,  322).  The  Alost  family,  related  to  the 
Constables  of  Halsham,  acquired  a substantial  holding  in  Fraisthorpe,  and 
made  several  grants  to  Bridlington  priory  (E.Y.C. , ii,  no.  808;  Hatton  Book 
of  Seals,  no.  520  and  note;  Bridlington  Chartulary,  pp.  194-201,  206). 

8.  19  Dec.  1183 — 18  Dec.  1184  (30  Henry  II).  At  York,  before 
Godfrey  de  Lucy,  Hugh  Murdac,  Hugh  de  Morwick,  Roger 
Arundel,  Geoffrey  de  Neville,  William  le  Vavasour  and 
Geoffrey  Haget,  king’s  justices.  Between  Robert  le  Vavasour, 
and  Jordan  le  Breton  and  Walter  his  brother  for  12  bovates 
of  land  in  Sutton  [par.  Kildwick]  'unde  bellum  fuit  inter  eos 
in  comitatu  Eboraci’.  6 bovates  remained  to  Robert  in 
demesne,  and  Jordan  and  his  brother  quitclaimed  the  other  6 
bovates  to  Robert  and  his  heirs. 

Text  (beginning  abbreviated)  2 pd.  in  E.Y.C.  vii,  no.  109,  from 
MS.  Dodsworth  cxxviii,  f.  163v. 

1 This  was  the  grand  assize;  and  it  is  suggested  that  it  was  instituted 
at  a great  council  held  at  Windsor,  probably  that  of  April  1179  (A.  L. 
Poole,  From  Domesday  Book  to  Magna  Carta,  p.  411). 

2 Another  text,  not  in  itself  complete,  gives  the  beginning  ‘Hec  est 
finalis  concordia  facta  in  curia  domini  regis  apud  Eboracum’  (College  of 
Arms,  Glover's  Collections  A,  f.  86v;  a reference  kindly  supplied  by  Lady 
Stenton) . 


Robert  le  Vavasour  held  this  land  in  Sutton  in  the  lifetime  of  his  father 
William,  who  held  half  a knight's  fee  of  the  honour  of  Skipton  in  1166 
{E.Y.C.,  vii,  p.  166);  cf.  also  no.  11  below.  In  1202  Robert  had  a quitclaim 
of  a carucate  in  Sutton  by  a final  concord  after  an  assize  of  mort  d 'ancestor 
( Yorks . Fines,  John,  p.  26);  and  his  right  to  half  a carucate  there  was 
recognized  by  a final  concord  in  Jan.  1218-9  {ibid.,  1218-31,  p.  13). 

9.  19  Dec.  1183 — 18  Dec.  1184  (30  Henry  II).  In  the  king's 
court  at  Doncaster,  before  Godfrey  de  Lucy  and  others. 
Between  Robert  de  Lascy  and  Henry  son  of  William  the 
almoner.  The  latter  quitclaimed  to  the  former  and  his  heirs 
4 bovates  of  land  in  Barwick  [in  Elmet]  and  3 tofts  in 

Text  (abbreviated)  pd.  in  E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1519,  from  D.  of  Lane. 
Miscel.  portf.  i,  no.  36,  m.  5. 

William  the  almoner  witnessed  several  charters  of  Robert  de  Lascy 's 
father,  Henry  de  Lascy,  who  died  in  1177  ( E.Y.C. , iii,  nos.  1496,  1500-4, 
1507,  1772-3). 

In  the  same  D.  of  Lane,  source  there  is  a brief  note  of  a fine  levied  in 
the  court  of  king  Henry  II,  28th  year  (1181-82)  between  Robert  de  Lascy 
and  Robert  the  chaplain,  son  of  Wermund,  for  2 bovates  of  land  in  Barwick; 
the  right  of  the  former  {ibid.,  no.  1518). 

10.  10  Sept.  1184.  In  the  king's  court  at  York,  before  the  same 
justices  as  in  no.  8 and  other  barons  and  lieges.  Between  the 
prior  and  convent  of  Bolton  and  Peter  son  of  Grent.  The 
former  at  the  prayer  of  the  latter  and  his  friends  granted  the 
church  of  Carleton  [in  Craven]  to  Alexander  the  clerk  as 
rector,  Adam  son  of  Alban  holding  the  church  of  Alexander 
as  a perpetual  vicarage,  paying  him  30s.  8<L  yearly,  and 
Alexander  paying  to  the  prior  and  convent  a yearly  pension 
of  4s.;  should  Alexander  survive  Adam  he  would  hold  the 
whole  church,  paying  to  the  canons  a mark  of  silver  yearly, 
and  after  his  death  the  church  would  be  free  from  all  claim  of 
Peter  and  his  heirs;  and  should  Adam  survive  Alexander  the 
prior  and  convent  would  receive  another  clerk  as  rector  at  the 
request  of  Peter  or  his  heirs. 

Text  pd.  in  E.Y.C. , vii,  no.  176,  with  facsimile,  plate  xii,  from  the 
original  of  one  of  the  parts,  B.M.  Add.  Ch.  20562,  showing  the  word 
cirographum  cut  through  at  the  top,  with  the  equestrian  seal  of  Peter 
son  of  Grent. 

The  vill  of  Carleton  was  a member  of  the  Percy  fee;  and  Peter  son  of 
Grent  was  a joint  holder  of  a knight’s  fee  of  William  de  Percy  in  1166.  But 
the  church  of  Skipton  with  its  chapel  of  Carleton  was  included  in  the  gift 
of  William  Meschin  and  Cecily  de  Rumilly  for  the  foundation  of  Embsay 
priory,  which  explains  the  interest  of  Bolton  priory  {E.Y.C.,  vii,  p.  287). 

11.  19  Dec.  1184 — 18  Dec.  1185  (31  Henry  II).  At  York,  before 
Rainer  then  sheriff1  and  all  the  county  court.  Between  Robert 
le  Vavasour  and  William  de  Danebi  for  half  a carucate  of  land 
in  Sutton  [par.  Kildwick].  The  former  gave  to  the  latter  2 
bovates  of  the  half-carucate  in  fee  and  inheritance. 

Text  (abbreviated)  pd.  in  E.Y.C.,  vii,  no.  110,  from  MS.  Dodsworth 
cxxviii,  f.  164,  and  lxviii,  f.  11. 

References  to  Robert  le  Vavasour’s  tenure  in  Sutton  are  given  at  no.  8 

1 Rainer  de  Waxham,  deputy-sheriff. 



12.  6 May  1186.  In  the  king’s  court  at  Westminster,  before 
Ranulf  de  Glanville,  king’s  justiciar,  Richard  the  treasurer, 
Hubert  Wales’  [recte  Walter],  mag.  Robert  de  Inglesham, 
Thomas  de  Huseburn’,  Hugh  de  Morwick,  William  Rufus, 
king’s  steward,  and  Michael  Belet,  and  other  lieges.  Between 
the  abbot  and  canons  of  Easby,  by  Edward  the  canon  whom 
they  had  put  in  their  place  to  win  or  lose  in  the  king’s  court, 
and  Warin  Travers  for  a carucate  of  land  in  Scales  in  Gilling, 
which  Warin  had  claimed  against  them  and  whereof  there  was 
a plea  between  them  in  the  king’s  court.  Warin  quitclaimed 
all  his  right  and  claim,  receiving  from  them  10  marks  of 
silver  and  a horse  priced  10s. 

Text  pd.  in  E.Y.C.,  v,  p.  74,  from  Easby  Chartulary,  Egerton  MS. 
2827,  f.  282. 

The  Travers  family  gave  its  name  to  Dalton  Travers,  one  of  the  three 
Daltons  in  Kirkby  Ravensworth.  Warin  Travers,  also  known  as  Warin 
son  of  Peter  de  Dalton,  was  evidently  descended  from  Warin  son  of  Hervey, 
known  as  Warin  Travers  vetus,  who  was  given  waste  land  at  Scales  by  Alan 
earl  of  Richmond,  1136-45;  and  the  land  of  Scales,  formerly  held  by  him, 
described  as  Warin  archarius,  was  given  to  Easby  abbey  by  earl  Conan, 
1156-PI  162  ( E.Y.C. , iv,  nos.  22,  39). 

13.  17  May  1186.  In  the  king’s  court  at  Westminster,  before 
Geoffrey  bishop  of  Ely,  John  bishop  of  Norwich,  Ranulf  de 
Glanville,  king’s  justiciar,  Richard,  king’s  treasurer,  Jocelin 
archdeacon  of  Chichester,  Robert  de  Inglesham,  Thomas  de 
Husseburne,  Hugh  Bardolf,  Robert  de  Witefeld  and  Michael 
Belet,  and  other  lieges.  Between  the  prior  and  canons  of 
Guisborough,  and  Roger  de  Rosel  and  Richard  his  brother 
for  the  advowson  of  the  church  of  Easington,  which  they 
claimed  as  of  Roger’s  gift  and  whereof  Roger  and  Richard 
had  been  summoned  in  the  king’s  court  to  show  why  they 
impeded  them  in  presenting  a rector.  Roger  recognized  and 
confirmed  the  gift  of  the  church  which  he  had  previously 
made,  and  Richard  confirmed  his  brother’s  gift,  quitclaiming 
all  right  and  claim  in  the  advowson. 

Text  pd.  in  Guisborough  Chartulary,  ii,  no.  916A,  from  MS.  Dods- 
worth  vii,  f.  46;  and  E.Y.C. , ii,  no.  895,  from  the  same. 

The  Rosel  family,  of  which  an  account  is  given  in  Guisborough  Chartulary , 
ii,  17 6n,  held  a tenancy  in  Easington  of  the  Brus  family,  who  held  of  the 
honour  of  Chester  [E.Y.C.,  ii,  p.  239).  The  original  gift  of  the  church  of 
Easington  was  made  by  Roger  de  Rosel  with  the  consent  of  Adam  his 
brother  and  heir  in  the  time  of  archbishop  Roger,  who  died  in  1181 
[Guisborough  Chartulary,  ii,  nos.  915-6;  E.Y.C.,  ii,  nos.  770-1).  It  is  likely 
that  the  difficulty  arose  when  a vacancy  in  the  church  occurred  after 
Adam’s  death,  Richard  the  next  heir  putting  forward  a claim. 

14.  8 July  1187.  In  the  king’s  court  at  York,  before  Godfrey  de 
Lucy,  Hugh  de  Morwick,  Jocelin  archdeacon  of  Chichester 
and  William  Vavasour,  king’s  justices.  Between  the  abbot 
and  monks  of  Bardney  and  Simon  de  Rocheford  for  the 
chapel  of  [Wold]  Newton,  whereof  an  assize  had  been  sum- 
moned in  the  king’s  court.  The  latter  quitclaimed  all  his 
right  therein. 


Text  pd.  in  E.Y.C.,  ii,  1204,  from  Bardney  Chartulary,  Cotton  MS. 
Vespasian  E.  xx,  f.  48v. 

The  Rochford  family  held  a tenancy  in  Wold  Newton  of  the  Percy 
family,  who  held  of  the  Gant  fee  ( Feudal  Aids,  vi,  28).  Bardney  abbey 
was  refounded  by  Gilbert  de  Gant,  whose  son  Walter  de  Gant,  who  died  in 
1139,  included  among  his  gifts  to  the  abbey  the  church  of  Hunmanby  and 
several  chapels,  of  which  Newton  was  one  {Mon.  Ang.,  i,  630).  William  son 
of  Simon  de  Rochford  made  a similar  quitclaim  to  Bardney  in  1192  (E.Y.C., 
ii,  nos.  1205-6). 

15.  16  July  1187.  In  the  king’s  court  at  York,  before  Godfrey  de 
Lucy,  Jocelin  archdeacon  of  Chichester  and  William  Vavasour, 
king’s  justices.  Between  the  abbot  and  convent  of  St.  Mary’s 
York  and  Philip  de  Eryholme  for  the  advowson  of  the  chapel 
of  Eryholme.  The  latter  quitclaimed  all  his  right  therein. 

Noted  from  the  text  in  Chartulary  of  St.  Mary’s  York  (Dean  and 
Chapter),  f.  260  (old  f.  197)  in  E.Y.C.,  v,  no.  148 n. 

In  the  presence  of  the  justices  named  above  at  York  Philip  de  Eryholme 
( Erghom ) issued  a charter  with  witnesses,  making  a quitclaim  of  the  advowson 
to  the  abbey,  after  an  inspection  of  the  muniments  ( E.Y.C. , v,  no.  148). 
He  was  doubtless  a member  of  the  local  family  which  held  Eryholme  as 
an  under-tenancy,  the  service  of  the  immediate  tenancy  of  the  honour  of 
Richmond  being  one  knight  and  castle-guard  [ibid.,  pp.  50,  52). 

The  chapel  of  Eryholme  was  included  in  the  comprehensive  confirmation 
charter  issued  to  the  abbey  by  count  Stephen,  lord  of  the  honour,  1125-35 
{ibid.,  iv,  no.  8). 

16.  22  July  1187.  In  the  king’s  court  [?]  at  York,1  before  the 
same  and  other  barons  and  lieges.  Between  the  abbot  and 
convent  of  Meaux,  and  Osbert  son  of  Godfrey  and  Ralph  de 
Flinton  for  a carucate  of  land  in  Holm  [Heigholme,  par.  Leven, 
E.R.],  formerly  belonging  to  Alan  de  Scures,  whereof  a 
recognition  of  mort  d’ancestor  had  been  summoned  between 
them.  Osbert  and  Ralph  quitclaimed  all  their  right  therein, 
receiving  60s.  of  silver. 

Text  pd.  in  E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1351,  from  MS.  Dodsworth  vii,  f.  244v, 
from  the  original  formerly  in  St.  Mary’s  Tower. 

Robert  son  of  Alan  de  Scures  gave  to  Meaux  abbey  a carucate  of  land, 
namely  all  the  holme  between  Leven  and  Burshill,  where  the  grange  called 
Hayholme  [Heigholme]  was  built,  and  the  gift  was  confirmed  by  members 
of  his  family  (Chron.  de.  Melsa,  i,  96).  The  confirmation  of  Maud  his  sister 
is  printed  in  E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1350;  and  the  land  or  grange  was  included  in 
pope  Alexander  Ill’s  confirmations  of  1172  and  1177  {ibid.,  nos.  1391-2). 
The  claim  made  by  Osbert  son  of  Godfrey  and  Ralph  de  Flinton  {quo  pacto 
nescio)  is  mentioned  in  the  Meaux  Chronicle,  where  the  recognition  of 
mort  d’ancestor  summoned  by  the  king’s  writ  and  the  final  concord  itself 
are  recorded  {Chron.  de  Melsa,  i,  221).  The  genealogy  of  the  Scures  family 
is  given  there  (i,  97);  cf.  E.Y.C.,  iii,  p.  64. 

17.  17  Sept.  1187.  In  the  king’s  court  at  Doncaster,  before  the 
same.  Between  the  monks  of  Roche  and  Robert  de  Armthorpe 
for  common  pasture  held  by  them  of  him  in  Armthorpe, 
whereof  an  assize  of  novel  disseisin  had  been  summoned 
between  them  in  the  king’s  court  by  the  writ  of  Ranulf  de 
Glanville.  Robert  gave  facilities  and  entered  into  arrange- 
ments specified  in  great  detail. 

1 No  place  is  mentioned,  but  the  justices  were  at  York  six  days  earlier. 



Text  pd.  in  E.Y.C.,  i,  no.  499,  from  MS.  Dodsworth  viii,  f.  300, 
from  the  original  in  St.  Mary’s  Tower. 

The  grange  of  Armthorpe  was  given  to  Roche  abbey  by  Thomas  de 
Armthorpe  and  was  confirmed  by  pope  Urban  III  in  1186  {Mon.  Ang.,  v, 
505).  Robert  was  probably  the  younger  son  of  Thomas  de  Armthorpe, 
possessing  an  interest  in  Armthorpe  which  passed  to  his  son,  who  made  an 
agreement  with  Thomas’s  grandson  and  heir  in  1202  ( Y.A.J. , xxix,  pp. 
70,  72,  89). 

18.  3 Nov.  1187.  In  the  king's  court  at  Westminster,  before 
Geoffrey  bishop  of  Ely,  John  bishop  of  Norwich,  Ranulf  de 
Glanville,  king’s  justiciar,  Hubert  dean  of  York,  Richard, 
king’s  treasurer,  Godfrey  de  Lucy,  and  Hugh  Bardolf,  king’s 
steward,  and  other  lieges.  Between  the  abbot  of  Byland  and 
the  nuns  of  Arden,  by  Mfuriel]  the  prioress  and  brother  S. 
their  warden,  for  land  and  wood  in  Arden,  which  the  nuns 
had  claimed  against  the  abbot,  and  whereof  there  had  been 
a recognition  of  novel  disseisin.  Apparently  a specified 
division  of  the  land  and  wood  was  made  between  them.1 

Text  (damaged)  in  Byland  Chartulary,  Egerton  MS.  2823,  f.  31v. 

This  did  not  close  the  trouble  between  the  two  houses.  In  1189,  when 
Muriel  was  still  prioress,  and  further  disputes  of  a more  serious  kind  had 
broken  out,  a settlement  was  made  at  the  instance  of  the  dean  and  chapter 
of  York  and  Jeremy  archdeacon  of  Cleveland  {Mon.  Ang.,  iv,  285). 

19.  12  April  1188.  In  the  king’s  court  at  York,  before  Hubert 
dean  of  York,  Laurence  archdeacon  of  Bedford,  mag.  Robert 
archdeacon  of  Gloucester,  William  son  of  Aldelin,  mag.  Roger 
Arundel,  John  de  Morwick,  Geoffrey  Haget,  William  Vavasour 
and  Erneis  de  Neville,  king’s  justices,  and  Reiner  the  sheriff 
and  other  lieges  of  the  king,  with  the  licence  previously  given 
by  Ranulf  de  Glanville,  chief  justiciar  of  England.  Between 
Hubert  the  dean  and  chapter  of  St.  Peter’s  York  and  Walter 
de  Hornington  concerning  the  controversy  between  Hamo  the 
precentor  and  Reginald  Arundel,  canon  of  Ulleskelf,  and 
Walter  de  Hornington,  the  latter  having  complained  that 
Reginald  had  obstructed  a ditch  to  his  damage,  whereof  there 
was  a plea  in  the  king’s  court.  The  precentor  and  Reginald 
would  make  arrangements,  specified  in  detail,  including  the 
erection  of  a bridge.  The  seal  of  the  chapter  of  York  and  that 
of  Walter  were  attached  to  either  portion  of  the  cirograph. 

Text  pd.  in  York  Minster  Fasti  (Yorks.  Rec.  Ser.),  i,  no.  47,  from 
Cotton  MS.  Claudius  B.  iii,  new  f.  83v  (b). 

The  interest  of  the  precentor  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  mill  of 
Ulleskelf  belonged  to  the  precentorship  {E.Y.C.,  i,  no.  156).  Hornington, 
par.  Bolton  Percy,  is  about  a mile  north  of  Ulleskelf.  Reginald  Arundel, 
prebendary  of  Ulleskelf — as  proved  by  this  final  concord — succeeded  Hamo 
as  precentor  in  1197-99  {Y.A.J.,  xxxv,  124).  Reiner  de  Waxham  was 
deputy-sheriff  to  Ranulf  de  Glanville  {E.Y.C.,  iv,  no.  97 n). 

20.  9 Oct.  1188.  In  the  king’s  court  at  York,  before  Hugh  bishop 
of  Durham,  William  de  Stuteville,  William  son  of  Aldelin, 
Roger  Arundel,  Peter  de  Ros,  Geoffrey  Haget  and  William 

1 The  last  portion  of  the  entry  is  mostly  obliterated. 


Vavasour,  king’s  justices,  and  other  barons  and  lieges  of  the 
king.  Between  the  abbot  and  convent  of  Fountains,  and 
Bernard  and  Mary  his  wife  for  half  a carucate  of  land  in 
Caldwell  by  Marton  [le  Moor,  par.  Kirby  Hill],  whereof  a 
plea  had  been  summoned  between  them  by  the  king’s  writ  of 
right.  They  quitclaimed  all  their  right  therein,  receiving  half 
a mark  of  silver. 

Text  pd.  infra;  translation  in  Fountains  Chartulavy,  ii,  490,  from 
B.M.  Add.  MS.  37770,  p.  433. 

At  the  Domesday  survey  there  were  4 carucates  in  Caldwell  (which 
has  now  disappeared),  soke  of  the  manor  of  Cundall,  held  by  the  count  of 
Mortain  ( V.C.H . Yorks.,  ii,  230).  William  Haget  gave  to  Fountains  abbey 
Caldwell  and  its  appurtenances,  namely  5 carucates  of  land,  1158-86;  and 
his  gift  was  confirmed  by  Bertram  Haget,  his  brother,  and  by  Roger  de 
Mowbray  ( Fountains  Chartulary,  ii,  486).  The  grange  of  Marton  cum 
Caldwell  was  included  in  king  Richard  I’s  confirmation  in  1189  (Mem. 
Fountains , ii,  9).  No  clue  seems  to  be  available  for  the  identification  of 
Bernard  and  his  wife. 

21.  1 Feb.  1188-9.  In  the  king's  court  at  York,  before  the  same.1 
Between  the  prior  of  Guisborough,  and  Amice  and  her  three 
sisters,  daughters  of  Alvered  de  Hutton,  for  2 bovates  and  3 
tofts  in  Hutton  [Lowcross,  par.  Guisborough],  whereof  a plea 
had  been  summoned  between  them  by  a writ  of  recognition. 
They  quitclaimed  their  right  therein,  receiving  10s. 

Text  pd.  in  Guisborough  Chartulary,  i,  no.  326,  from  Guisborough 
Chartulary,  Cotton  MS.  Cleopatra  D.  ii,  f.  179v. 

Hutton  Lowcross  was  a member  of  the  Brus  fee.  Robert  son  of  Robert 
son  of  Alvered  confirmed  the  gift  made  to  Guisborough  priory  by  Emma 
de  Hutton,  his  grandmother,  of  2 bovates  and  2 tofts  in  Hutton  immediately 
after  entering  into  his  inheritance,  1170-85;  he  was  also  known  as  Robert 
son  of  Robert  son  of  Alvered  de  Skelton  (E.Y.C.,  ii,  nos.  697-8).  It  can  be 
presumed  that  Amice  and  her  sisters  were  his  aunts. 


Text  of  No.  20  (B.M.  Add.  MS.  37770,  p.  433). 

Hec  est  finalis  concordia  facta  in  curia  domini  regis  apud 
Ebor[acum]  die  sancti  Dionisii  anno  regni  regis  H.  secundi  xxxiiij 
coram  H.  Dunelm[ensi]  episcopo  et  Willelmo  de  Stuteuill’  et 
Willelmo  filio  Aldelini  et  Rogero  Arund[el]  et  Petro  de  Ros  et 
Gaufrido  Haggh[et]  et  Willelmo  Vauas[or’]  tunc  justicfiis]  domini 
regis  et  aliis  baronibus  et  fidelibus  domini  regis  qui  tunc  ibi 
aderant  inter  abbatem  et  conventum  de  Fontibus  et  Bernard[um] 
et  Mariam  uxorem  ejus  de  dimidia  carucjata]  terre  in  Caldewell' 
juxta  Marton’  unde  placitum  summonitum  fu[it]  inter  eos  per 
breve  domini  regis  de  recto,  scilicet  quod  predicti  Bernard[us]  et 
Maria  quietamclamaverunt  de  se  et  heredibus  suis  predictis  abbati 
et  conventui  prefatam  dimidiam  carruc[atam]  terre  cum  omnibus 
pertinenciis  suis  et  totum  jus  et  clamium  quod  in  ilia  clamaverunt; 
pro  hac  vero  quietaclamacione  dederunt  predicti  abbas  et  conventus 
predictis  Bernardo  et  Marie  dimidiam  marcam  argenti. 

1 Mag.  Roger  Arundel  so  described. 




By  R.  H.  Hayes. 

The  sites  are  S.W.  of  Crayke  Hill  near  Woodhouse  Farm  (150 
ft.  O.D.)  6"  map  CXXI  S.E.;  Grid  Refs,  (sites  1-3  of  fig.  1)  553  695 
(site  4)  551  697;  on  both  sides  of  Daffy  Lane.  Crayke  is  one  of 
the  few  surviving  Celtic  place  names.1  The  name  of  the  field  where 
sites  1-3  are  situated  is  “Toad  Close”.  To  the  south  is  a field 
called  “The  Hums”  traditionally  associated  with  charcoal  burners. 

Mr.  Nelson,  who  was  farming  Woodhouse  in  1956,  ploughed 
up  large  quantities  of  stone  in  Toad  Close,  especially  in  the 
southern  half  where  he  estimated  he  removed  50  tons.  Elsewhere 
the  field  was  fertile  soil  practically  stoneless.  He  noted  two 
beehive-type  querns  associated  with  potsherds.  The  finds  were 
reported  to  Mrs.  N.  Knowles  of  Broad  Dyke,  Crayke,  who  examined 
the  site,  and  found  other  rough-cut  querns,  also  more  potsherds. 
With  Mr.  S.  V.  Morris,  and  help  from  Mr.  Nelson,  she  dug  some 
trial  trenches  over  the  area  around  site  1 . This  revealed  extensive 
patches  of  rough  paving,  or  cobbles,  at  a depth  of  12"  to  15". 
The  trenches  were  not  extended  the  full  length  of  the  stone  work, 
but  roofing  slabs  and  flue  tiles  imply  rectangular  buildings  of  the 
usual  Romano-British  type,  even  the  probability  of  a nearby 
villa.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  very  likely  the  sites  are  native 
dwelling  floors  similar  to  those  excavated  at  Elmswell  in  1936-38, 2 
or  those  found  on  the  outskirts  of  the  Roman  Town  of  Norton, 
near  Malton.3 

Pottery  was  not  plentiful;  more  might  be  found  if  further 
excavations  took  place.  The  ware  seemed  mainly  4th  century 
A.D.  products,  though  some  earlier  sherds  with  affinities  to  the 
later  Iron  age,  turned  up.  (Nos.  1,  2;  Fig.  2).  Some  medieval 
sherds  of  the  13-14th  century  A.D.  were  also  noted.  Mr.  Nelson 
pointed  out  where  several  suspicious  looking  mounds  and  uneven 
patches  that  had  stones  beneath,  could  be  seen  in  the  adjoining 
field  to  the  west.  Later  in  1958  a drainage  trench  in  the  field 
north  of  Daffy  Lane  (site  4)  produced  a small  group  of  12-14 
sherds  of  a similar  date  to  the  rest.  The  numerous  querns  found 
in  the  district  denote  considerable  activity  or  settlements,  es- 
pecially on  fertile  land  near  streams  similar  to  that  flowing  through 
Toad  Close.  N.W.  of  Crayke  Hill,  near  Mount  Pleasant  Farm,  a 
large  plain  body  sherd  of  calcite-gritted  ware  was  dug  up  at  a 

1 Smith.  “Place  Names,  N.R.  Yorks.”  1928,  pp.  xv,  27;  Elgee  “Early 
Man”  Fig.  64,  p.  213. 

2 Excavations  at  Elmswell,  E.  Yorks.  Philip  Corder,  M.A.,  F.S.A., 


3 See  discussion  on  these  sites  in  “Transactions  of  Scarborough  Archae- 
ological Society”  1958.  Vol.  I,  No.  1,  p.  26-36. 


Fig.  1 



• (nice 





depth  of  2 ft.  by  R.  Trenholme,  digging  a hole  for  an  electric 
pylon  in  1957.  He  also  found  a broken  flint  leaf-head  of  Neolithic 
type.  Fig.  3.  No.  26.  A polished  stone  axe  was  found  recently 
in  a field  west  of  the  above  site  by  a boy  of  Bulmer  Easingwold. 
(Information  from  Mrs.  Knowles,  1959). 

Mrs.  Knowles  found  a fine  little  tanged  and  barbed  flint 
arrowhead  on  a mole  hill  in  the  field  known  as  “The  Hums”. 
Fig.  3.  No.  25. 

On  the  line  of  a footpath  running  north  from  Crayke  Castle 
she  dug  a trial  trench  into  a ridged  trackway,  which  had  a single 
layer  of  cobbles  5"  down,  on  a band  of  clay;  this  in  turn,  rested 
on  cobbles  16"  deep.  There  appeared  to  be  a line  of  kerb  stones 
level  with  the  upper  layer  of  cobbles  on  the  east  side.  A hedge 
obliterated  the  west  kerb.  Another  trial  hole  on  this  ridge  pro- 
duced 3 or  4 sherds,  one  undoubtedly  medieval,  the  second,  a 
scrap  of  orange-red  ware  similar  to  fig.  2,  No.  16,  and  thirdly,  a 
piece  of  calcite-gritted  ware  of  4th  century  or  earlier.  Another 
site  east  of  Broad  Dyke,  south  of  Crayke  Hill,  produced  more 
gritted  ware  and  hard  grey  ware. 

There  is  no  doubt  the  district  is  rich  in  occupation  sites 
from  the  Pre-Roman  to  medieval  times.  More  sites  will  be  dis- 
covered and  examined  in  the  near  future  (see  notes  on  querns). 
It  would  prove  a fruitful  area  for  anyone  with  time  and  energy 
to  work  over  it  for  a period. 

The  Finds. 

(a)  Pottery  (Fig.  2) 

1.  & 2.  Rims  of  situla  type  jars  or  cookpots,  hand-made  calcite-gritted 
ware,  with  calx-spar  in  grit.  Brown  black  sooty  exterior,  pink  interior, 
very  worn.  Iron  age  survival  (Site  4).  Cf. : Crossgates  (Scarborough 
and  Dist.  Arch  Society  Research  Rep.  No.  1)  Type  4;  or  Langton 
(early  site),  Fig.  7;  Nos.  20-23.  Roman  Malton  and  Dist.  Rep.  No.  4. 
3-8.  Cook-pot  rims  and  body  sherds,  probably  all  late  4th  century  A.D., 
3-4,  5 & 7,  all  signal  station  type  26.  Calcite-gritted  ware,  some  pitted. 
Nos.  6 & 8 without  internal  groove.  No.  8,  hard-black  fumed  ware. 
Several  other  sherds  of  this  fabric.  A common  type  on  late  4th  century 
sites,  and  could  have  survived  into  Saxon  times.  Made  in  large 
quantities  on  all  local  Roman  and  native  sites,  as  well  as  the  kilns  at 
Knapton,  E.  Yorks.  (All  from  sites  1-3,  apart  from  No.  3 from  site  4). 

9.  Rim  of  bowl  or  dish  in  sandy  orange-red  ware  (large). 

10.  Reconstruction  from  five  worn  fragments  of  hemispherical  flanged 
bowl  in  sandy  red  ware;  in  type  like  crambeck  5,  but  not  in  Crambeck 
fabric,  probably  local  manufacture?  Similar  to  Cold  Cam  kiln  red 
ware. 1 Many  imitations  of  this  type  found  on  late  4th  century  pave- 
ments at  Norton — Malton.  2 

1 Cold  Cam,  Hambleton  Hills.  Native  Romano-British  site  with  plots  - 
or  crude  fields.  Pottery  Kiln  in  Cockerdale  Wood  destroyed  by  bulldozer. 
Sherds  in  Scarborough  Museum,  salvaged  by  J.  W.  Moore,  1953.  Excavations 
by  the  writer  and  others,  produced  no  evidence  of  dwelling  or  other  kilns, 
but  a storage  pit  (or  silo)  was  found  containing  broken  quern  stones,  pottery 
and  burnt  material.  Another  group  of  6 or  7 small  walled  plots  £ mile  west 

of  the  kiln  site. 

2 Eastfield  Norton,  Unpublished  Report.  R.  H.  Hayes  and  J.  H. 



Fig.  2.  Scale  = £. 

Pottery  from  Sites  1-4,  Woodhouse  Farm,  Crayke. 



11-13.  Rims  of  flanged  dishes  similar  to  Crambeck  type  I.  No.  1 1 in  course 
grey  ware;  12  Smooth  grey.  13  ditto.,  common-late  3rd;  throughout 
4th  century,  and  later. 

14.  Rim  of  mortarium,  coarse  red  ware,  ironstove  grit,  probably  3rd 
century  A.D.  A product  of  the  Cold  Cam  kiln? 

15.  Handle  of  jug  in  sandy-orange  ware  (2nd-3rd  century  A.D.).  Another 
in  pink  to  grey  ware  found  site  3.  Cf.  Carleon,  Jenkin’s  Field,  1926, 
Rep.,  Fig.  30;  No.  47. 

16.  Small  globular  jar  in  hard  sandy  red  ware,  grey  core,  5 pieces  fit. 
Ware  like  Cold  Cam  3rd  or  4th  century,  but  this  example  could  be 
much  earlier. 

17-19.  Rims  and  base  of  straight-sided  dishes.  17  hard  sandy  grey  with 
deeply  incised  lines,  like  Norton  Kiln  type  1.  3rd  century  A.D.  18 
very  hard  stoney  ware,  paralleled  by  sherd  from  Blossom  Street,  York. 
Excavations  1954.  19  Sandy  grey.  Site  4. 

(b)  Stone,  Flint  and  Tile  (Fig.  3) 

21-22.  Several  small  pieces  as  well  as  the  two  shown  all  from  flue  tiles. 
No.  14  has  faintly  scored  lines;  15  deeply  incised.  These  imply  a 
hypocaust  in  the  vicinity  but  as  at  Norton  they  could  be  re-used  in 
a later  ‘Native’  site  from  the  ruins  of  an  earlier  building.  Some  pieces 
of  “tegula”  or  roofing  tiles,  and  several  pieces  of  very  weathered 
sandstone  roofing  slabs;  one  with  nail  hole,  were  found.  These  were 
of  much  softer  stone  than  the  usual  material. 

STOKtL  FDKlT  «X,TU_E  ^ ROMHo-B'RmsH  -Imeluno  site  cra-yke. 

Fig.  3.  Scale  = £. 

23.  Heart-shaped  piece  of  smoothed  sandstone.  Pendant  or  charm?  or 
could  be  used  as  a skin  scraper. 

24.  Core  of  grey  brown  flint,  utilized  for  flaking.  Worked  flints  and  cores 
occurred  at  Eastfield,  Norton,  Sleights,  Topstone,  Elmswell  and  many 
other  ‘Native’  Romano-British  sites. 


25.  Tanged  and  barbed  flint  arrowhead,  well  flaked,  white  patina  due 

to  fire.  Found  on  mole-hill  in  ‘The  Hums’,  a field  south  of  Toad 

Close,  by  Mrs.  Knowles,  1956.  Bronze-age  type. 

26.  Broken  leaf-head  in  finely  pressure-flaked  brown  flint.  Neolithic  to 

Early  Bronze  Age. 

Found  by  R.  Trenholme  of  Hutton-le-Hole  on  surface  of  field  at  Mount 

Pleasant  Farm,  N.W.  of  Crayke  Castle. 

20.  Fragment  of  fluted  glass,  pale  green  tinge  with  air  bubbles  in  fabric. 

Cf.  British  Museum  guide  to  Roman  Britain  1951.  Pts.  XI  & XII. 

Other  pieces  of  glass  found  in  field  were  all  modern. 

(c)  Beehive  Rotary  Querns.  Crayke  and  Stillington  (Fig.  4) 

As  mentioned  above  in  the  account  of  Romano-British  paved  floors  at 
Woodhouse  farm,  4 querns  were  found.  (Nos.  1,  2,  3 & 3a).  Mr.  Nelson 
keeps  them  in  his  buildings.  It  is  due  to  his  kindness  I was  able  to  re- 
examine them  and  make  drawings.  No  doubt  there  were  many  more 
fragments  of  querns  in  the  stones  carted  from  the  field.  Mrs.  N.  Knowles 
has  recorded  several  others,  all  of  the  beehive  type  from  the  district.  I am 
indebted  to  her  for  spending  much  time  on  the  subject  and  taking  me  on  a 
survey  of  those  existing  mainly  in  gardens  or  on  rockeries;  probably  not 
far  from  the  sites  where  they  were  used.  In  less  than  half  a day  we  were 
able  to  examine,  or  record,  no  less  than  thirteen  specimens.  It  is  clear  that 
the  belt  of  rising  ground  ten  miles  N.  of  York  from  Raskelf  to  Sheriff  Hutton, 
especially  near  the  springs  and  streams  that  feed  the  River  Foss,  was  a 
major  corn-growing  area  from  late  Iron  age  and  throughout  the  Roman  era. 

Querns  have  been  sadly  neglected  in  the  past  by  northern  archaeolo- 
gists, hence  Sir  Mortimer  Wheeler’s  remarks  on  p.  28  of  the  Stanwick 
Report 1 — “the  overwhelming  majority  of  them,  whether  pre-Roman  or  Roman 
in  date,  occurs  on,  or  south  of  the  Jurassic  Zone,  with  a spill-over  towards 
the  Trent  basin.  Their  scarcity  in  Derbyshire,  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire  is 
outstanding.  Of  the  principal  midland  class  of  pre-Roman  origin — the 
‘Hunsbury’  type — the  great  area  of  Yorkshire  has  produced  something  like 
13  examples,  all  without  context;  Lancashire  and  Derbyshire  perhaps  1 each. 
The  evidence  therefore  from  this  source  for  the  cultivation  of  grain  before 
the  Roman  settlement,  if  not  quite  so  resolutely  negative  as  is  that  from 
the  absence  of  storage  pits  (at  Stanwick),  is  inconsiderable.’’ 

These  remarks  show  that  he  based  his  evidence  solely  on  a list  headed: 
“Distribution  of  Querns  in  England’’,  drawn  up  by  Judith  T.  Philips,  B.A. 2 
This  list  and  its  accompanying  article  contains  much  useful  information, 
but  is  very  incomplete  with  regard  to  Yorkshire,  only  giving  8 examples 
from  the  Sheffield  area  and  mention  of  five  at  Doncaster  museum.  No 
account  is  taken  of  those  in  other  Yorks,  museums3  nor  of  the  five  or  six 
figured  in  Richmond’s  “Huddersfield  in  Roman  Times’’;  nor  Elgee’s  remarks, 
and  Fig.  66  in  “Early  Man  in  N.E.  Yorks.’’  The  total  for  N.E.  Yorks,  alone 
must  be  well  over  60.  4 

Miss  Philips  sums  up  the  Yorks,  type  as  derived  directly  from  the 
Hunsbury  type,  which  is  conical  or  beehive  in  shape,  with  an  extremely 
narrow  feed  pipe;  the  angle  of  the  grinding  surface  is  flat  or  only  slightly 
inclined.  In  the  Hunsbury  type  the  handle  holes  penetrate  the  hopper  or 
feed-pipe,  but  the  Yorks,  types  differ,  only  having  handle  holes  (often  2 or  3) 
which  do  not  penetrate  the  hopper  or  feed  pipe — though  one  example  I have 
seen  in  the  Settle  (Pig  Yard)  Museum,  has  handle  holes  of  the  former  variety. 

1 The  Stanwick  Fortifications,  N.R.  of  Yorks.  Sir  Mortimer  Wheeler, 


2 Transactions  of  Leicestershire  Archaeological  Society,  26-28,  1950-52; 
pp.  75-82. 

3 Twelve  in  Scarborough  Museum,  six  in  the  two  Settle  Museums, 
four  in  Middlesbrough  Museum,  several  at  Whitby,  and  five  at  Malton,  as 
well  as  numerous  flat  querns.  I have  not  yet  made  inquiries  at  the  Yorks. 
Museum,  or  Mortimer  Collection,  Hull.  Doubtless  many  more  in  the  smaller 

4 A list  of  those  recorded  is  being  compiled. 



Iron  rust  appears  in  handle  holes  of  three  from  Hunsbury  1 not  found 
elsewhere,  but  from  the  size  of  handle  holes  in  the  Yorks,  variety  it  may  be 
inferred  that  it  was  not  unusual  to  have  iron  handles  as  well  as  iron  spindles 
rotating  in  iron  sleeves  in  the  upper  stones. 

No  site  in  Britain  has  produced  as  many  querns  (48  upper  and  55  lower 
stones),  as  Hunsbury — several  more  were  removed  by  workmen  and  un- 
recorded. They  were  made  on  the  spot  from  gritstone  imported  from 


Fig.  4.  Scale  = 1/12. 

Derbyshire.  [Wharnecliffe  Crags  near  Sheffield  was  an  important  quern 
quarry  (Inf.  from  C.  W.  Phillips).]  There  is  evidence  that  the  Cray ke  querns 
were  shaped  on  the  sites  from  rough-cuts  obtained  from  the  local  sandstones 
or  limestones  of  the  Hambletons. 

1 Ibid.,  No.  2. 


The  type  almost  certainly  arrived  in  Yorks,  before  the  Roman  era, 
probably  in  the  latter  half  of  the  first  century  R.C.  Recent  excavations  at 
Kildale  and  Levisham  Moor1  prove  their  association  with  pottery  of  the 
first  century  A.D.  and  probably  much  earlier  occupation. 

Fig.  No.  4. 

Upper  stone  of  beehive  type  quern;  diameter  13"  ht.  6"  hopper  5"  dia. 
tapering  to  1"  at  base  (1b)  worn  flat  and  smooth  below  almost  to 
broken  handle  hole,  second  handle  hole  2"  above  base.  Hard  sand- 
stone— from  site  1-2  paving  south  of  Daffy  Lane  near  Woodhouse 
Farm  (Mr.  Nelson). 

2.  Half  broken  from  lower?  quern  stone — no  sign  of  central  hole.  12" 
diameter  4"  thick,  smoothed  on  both  sides.  Could  be  grain  rubber 
used  with  No.  4.  Fine-grained  sandstone  burnt  (found  as  No.  1). 

3.  Conical  sandstone  11"  dia.  9"  high.  Hollow  on  top  3£"  x 1"  deep,  no 
handle  holes.  Could  be  unfinished  upper  stone,  or  for  use  with  small 
round  rubber  as  example  in  Pig  Yard  Museum  at  Settle.  In  paved 
area  as  No.  1 & 2.  Kept  at  Woodhouse  Farm.  (3a)  A roughed-out 
conical  stone  15"  dia.,  approx,  and  1 1"  high,  no  holes — on  site  1 as  1 a-b. 
Not  drawn. 

4.  Grain  rubber  stone  7"  x 4"  smoothed  sandstone  for  use  with  saddle 
stone  quern. 

5.  Upper  beehive  type  quern  stone  13"  dia.  6£"  high  6"  dia.  hopper 
tapering  to  f"  at  flat  base,  single  handle  hole  2"  deep  f"  wide  broken 
or  worn  down  at  this  point.  Roughly  pitted  sandstone,  found  north  of 
New  Grange  Farm  (formerly  North  Skeugh  Farm)  Stillington  in  field 
called  Slack  Stys  near  spring  and  stream  (Grid  Ref.  574-694)  now  in 
front  garden  of  Broad  Dyke,  Crayke.  (Mrs.  N.  Knowles). 

6.  Tall  conical  upper  stone,  narrow  feed  pipe,  off  centre,  three  handle 
holes  two  near  well-worn  base  and  later  hole  set  2"  higher.  Reddish 
sandstone,  picked,  12  " dia.  8"  high.  Hopper  3|".  Found  with  Nos. 
5,  7 & 9 as  above  at  North  Skeugh  by  Mr.  Knowles  and  kept  in  his 
garden,  Rose  Cottage,  Crayke. 

7.  Tall  conical  upper  stone  12"  dia.  9"  high,  narrow  irregular  feed-pipe 
and  three  handle  holes  (one  broken  at  base).  Later  a 2"  hole  inserted 
6"  above  base  at  angle  of  70°).  Slightly  convex  at  base.  (Found  and  kept 
as  No.  6.) 

No.  8a  & b.  A neat  example  12"  diameter  6"  high  with  wide  hopper  1\" . 
Three  handle  holes  all  about  2"  above  base  (flat)  light  sandstone  with 
pick  marks. 

Found  several  years  ago  near  Stillington — probably  at  No.  5-9,  now 
in  rockery  of  Mrs.  Hugill,  West  End,  Stillington. 

9.  Upper  stone,  8"  diameter  4\"  high,  2\"  dia.  hopper  (1"  rim  round  top 
tapering  to  1"  at  base,  which  is  slightly  convex.  Four  evenly  spaced 
handle  holes  3"  from  base  f"  diameter  only  penetrating  1".  Mayen  lava 
imported  from  Germany,  in  the  Roman  era,  from  the  great  quern 

1 Kildale  Excavations  by  Rowland  Close  at  Pale  End,  Kildale,  in  1957, 
revealed  some  roughly  paved  dwelling  floors  of  a Romano-British  native 
settlement  on  top  of  earlier  clay  floor  with  stone  hearth,  and  pottery  of 
iron-age  types,  situtu  jars,  etc.  Broken  beehive  quern-stones  set  in  upper 
paving  over  the  early  hearth.  In  the  later  paving  no  less  than  10  flat  rotary 
quern  stones  were  found. 

Levisham  Moor.  On  Levisham  Moor  the  Scarborough  and  District 
Archaeological  Society  are  excavating  a square  fort  probably  slighted  by 
the  Romans  during  their  advance  into  N.E.  Yorks.  (A.D.  71).  The  lower 
stone  of  a beehive  rotary  quern  was  directly  associated  with  late  Iron-age 
pottery  and  a fragment  of  the  upper  stone  was  found  at  the  base  of  the 
6-ft.  rock-cut  ditch  a few  feet  to  the  west  of  the  above  find. 



quarries  that  were  used  from  neolithic  to  medieval  times.  Type  not 
shown  on  Fig.  I.  (Roder  Fig.  4)  in  Antiquity,  March  1955. 1 Found 
with  Nos.  5,  6 & 7,  by  Mr.  Knowles.  Now  in  garden  at  Rose  Cottage, 

Not  Drawn. 

10.  Upper  stone  of  beehive  type,  similar  to  Nos.  5-8  ploughed  up  S.W.  of 
Park  House,  Crayke  (Grid  Ref.  558,  695)  by  Olaf  Slater,  June  1956. 
Now  given  to  Mr.  Warriner,  The  Ruddings,  Easingwold  Road.  Inf. 
from  Mrs.  N.  Knowles. 

1 1 . Upper  stone  of  similar  type  seen  by  Mrs.  Knowles  in  3rd  cottage, 
E.  of  village  shop  Stillington,  1956.  Not  found  in  back  garden  on 
recent  visit.  Probably  from  same  site  as  Nos.  5-9. 

12.  Similar  upper  stone  found  at  Boscar  Grange  near  Cold  Harbour,  on 
Thirsk — Easingwold  Road,  Grid  Ref.  506,  725.  Iron  slag  in  association 
on  site. 

13.  Another  similar  stone  reported  from  Raskelf,  west  of  Inn,  Grid  Ref. 
492-712;  further  to  the  west  is  the  site — “Old  Burrow  Hill”  125  ft.  O.D. 
(see  M.K.C.,  p.  121). 2 

14.  Mutilated  lower  stone,  Zion  Hill  Farm,  north  of  Crayke,  kept  at  above 
farm  by  owner,  Mr.  Jackson. 

1 Antiquity,  March  1955.  Quern  Quarries  of  Mayen  in  the  Eifel, 
Germany.  O.  G.  S.  Crawford. 

2 Roman  Malton  and  District  Report  No.  5,  p.  121. 



By  E.  J.  W.  Hildyard,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 

Few  places  in  all  Yorkshire  can  rival,  for  historical  interest 
and  beauty  of  situation,  the  picturesque  village  of  Crayke,  with 
its  red  roofs  climbing  an  isolated  outlier  of  the  Howardian  Hills 
crowned  by  grey  church  and  castle.  Given  to  St.  Cuthbert  by 
King  Egfridus  (c.68 5)  it  remained  a part  of  County  Durham  until 

In  1937  during  the  levelling  work  required  to  make  a tennis 
court  below  Crayke  Hall  (see  Site  Plan),  on  the  eastern  slope  of 
the  hill,  a number  of  finds  of  various  periods,  Roman,  Saxon, 
Viking  and  Mediaeval  came  to  light.  These  have  been  described 
in  a previous  article  in  this  Journal.1  The  Roman  finds  consisted 
of  some  glass  and  pottery,  the  latter  of  Crambeck  type  including 
the  inevitable  Huntcliff  cookpot.  Later  Mrs.  Knowles,  the 
diligent  guardian  of  local  antiquities,  obtained  from  the  former 
gardener  at  Crayke  Hall  the  piece  of  decorated  Samian  illustrated 
and  described  below,  which  had  been  overlooked  by  the  workmen. 
In  1948  the  construction  of  a reservoir  between  the  church  and 
castle  (see  Site  Plan)  necessitated  considerable  excavation  by 
mechanical  means.  Mrs.  Knowles  watched  this  work  and  recovered 
a piece  of  flue  tile  from  near  the  South  side  of  the  reservoir,  which 
confirmed  the  presence  of  occupation  in  Roman  times  on  the 

These  finds  together  with  the  striking  position  of  the  place 
which  suggested  it  might  be  a Roman  site  of  more  than  ordinary 
interest,  coupled  with  the  enthusiasm  of  Mrs.  Knowles  (who  had 
already  found  another  Roman  site — Woodhouse  Farm  sites  1-3  of 
fig.  1 — half  a mile  away  in  the  vale  below),  induced  the  writer 
to  persuade  the  Roman  Antiquities  Committee  of  the  Society 
to  make  a small  grant  for  a trial  excavation. 

Work  was  directed  by  the  writer  for  parts  of  two  weeks  in 
June  1956,  from  11th- 16th,  much  hampered  by  wet  weather,  and 
from  22nd-25th.  Our  grateful  thanks  are  due  to  the  landowner, 
Mr.  A.  D.  Cliff  and  Mr.  L.  C.  Moverley  the  tenant,  who  gave 
permission  for  the  digging  of  TRS  I and  II  and  to  Mr.  Osborne, 
Clerk  to  the  Easingwold  R.D.C.  for  permission  to  dig  TR.  Ill 
within  the  reservoir  enceinte.  Miss  Mallory,  Matron  of  the  Clay- 
penny  Hospital  kindly  provided  labour  and  we  were  indebted  to 
Mrs.  Sanderson  of  Crayke  Hall  for  many  kindnesses.  In  the  field 
the  writer  had  the  experienced  help  of  Mr.  A.  Pacitto.  Such 
results  as  have  been  achieved  are  largely  due  to  the  expert  reports 
of  Mrs.  Le  Patourel,  Professor  R.  Warwick  and  Mr.  B.  R.  Hartley, 
F.S.A.,  which  follow  the  description  of  the  excavation. 

Y.A.J.,  Part  135  (1939). 


CRAYKE  1 9 5 6.  SITE  PLAN 






Trench  I.  From  the  limited  amount  of  ground  available 
for  digging  (see  Site  Plan),  the  position  of  the  first  trench  was 
selected  as  a place  not  likely  to  have  been  disturbed  in  any  recent 
times.  It  was  laid  out,  in  a field  of  rough  pasture  parallel  with 
and  at  a distance  of  15  ft.  from  the  East  boundary  fence  of  the 
churchyard.  It  was  50  ft.  long  by  4 ft.  wide. 

The  stratification  can  be  seen  in  Section  I and  was  simple, 
if  rather  unexpected.  For  the  first  foot  throughout  the  trench 
was  disturbed  humus  in  which  occurred  a considerable  amount  of 
mediaeval  pottery  on  which  Mrs.  Le  Patourel  has  reported  in  a 
later  section.  Apart  from  a few  stray,  un worked  flints  the  only 
other  find  was  a jetton,  fully  described  below,  found  by  the 
Director  on  the  first  day.  This  provided  a useful  check  for  the 
dating  of  the  pottery.  The  only  other  features  were  two  small 
areas  of  stones  reddened  by  fire  and  covered  with  ash,  containing 
also  a number  of  pieces  of  slag.  Their  position  is  shown  on  the 

Below  this  and  overlying  the  iron  pan  and  shale  subsoil, 
came  2 ft.  of  dense  yellow  clay  which  itself  would  have  been 
thought  to  have  been  quite  undisturbed  but  for  the  fact  that  it 
was  found  to  contain  skeletal  remains  of  at  least  sixteen  bodies. 
They  lay  at  depths  varying  from  1 ft.  6 ins.  to  3 ft.  and  in  all 
cases  were  separated  by  at  least  several  inches,  but  usually  a foot 
or  more,  of  clay  from  the  pottery  layer  of  disturbed  soil. 

The  clay  itself  showed  no  sign  of  disturbance  whatever  and 
not  only  could  no  clear  section  of  the  graves  be  detected  but  there 
was  no  sign  of  such  a section  at  all  such  as  would  have  been 
expected  if  there  had  been  any  form  of  coffin  although  entirely 
destroyed  by  the  acid  clay.  Nor,  not  surprisingly,  was  there  any 
sign  of  a shroud,  nor  were  there  any  objects  of  any  sort  associated 
with  the  skeletons  in  spite  of  most  careful  search. 

The  bodies  were  all  laid  at  right  angles  across  the  trench 
with  heads  pointing  to  the  West.  Since  the  trench  was  only  4 ft. 
wide  and  the  skeletons  were  extended  none  were  recovered 
complete,  the  bones  being  so  corroded  by  the  clay  that  it  was 
not  thought  worthwhile  to  extend  the  trench  laterally  to  do  so. 
In  any  case  the  combination  of  heavy  clay  and  repeated  thunder 
rain  made  it  difficult  to  deal  with  the  remains  in  the  normal  way 
without  expending  an  unjustifiable  amount  of  our  limited  time. 
Three  groups  were,  however,  cleaned  up  sufficiently  to  be  photo- 
graphed in  situ,  the  rest  were  merely  removed  as  carefully  as 

Professor  Warwick  reports  on  the  groups  below,  not  all  of 
which  were  single  individuals.  A,  E,  I,  G and  M were  merely 
skulls  recovered  from  the  east  side  of  the  trench.  J was  the  upper 
half  of  a skeleton  including  the  skull,  B,  F and  H from  neck  to 




just  below  knees,  L from  the  legs  downwards  and  C,  D and  K a 
confusion  of  more  than  one  individual,  in  two  cases  a skull  being 
between  thigh  bones. 

Trench  II.  After  the  failure  of  TR.  I to  produce  any  signs 
of  Roman  occupation,  another  trench  24  ft.  long  by  4 ft.  wide 
parallel  with  and  at  a distance  of  15  ft.  from  the  north  wall  of 
the  churchyard  was  begun  westwards  from  a point  90  ft.  east  of 
the  reservoir  fence  (see  Site  Plan).  It  was  designed  to  section  a 
slight  depression  with  mound  on  its  west  side  noticeable  on  the 
ground  at  this  point  running  north  for  some  25  yds.  and  then 
curving  round  westwards. 

The  main  feature  of  this  trench  (see  Section  II)  was  a ditch, 
of  4 ft.  6 ins.  maximum  depth,  at  the  east  end  of  the  trench  filled 
with  debris  of  a wall  standing  on  its  west  edge.  This  at  first 
appeared  to  be  a dry  wall  but  a few  pieces  of  decayed  lime  sug- 
gested it  may  not  have  been  without  mortar.  Some  of  the  stones 
were  reddened  by  heat.  On  both  sides  of  the  wall  was  a con- 
siderable deposit  of  small  oblong  roof  tiles,  some  complete,  with 
the  peg  hole  near  the  top  right  corner.  There  was  a scatter  of 
mediaeval  pottery  throughout  and  especially  in  the  ditch  but  the 
most  noticeable  find  was  a piece  of  box  flue  tile  with  crossed 
diagonal  striations,  at  a depth  of  1 ft.  3 ins.,  18  ft.  from  the  east 
end  of  the  trench.  Here  at  least  was  evidence,  at  no  great 
distance,  of  the  presence  of  the  Romans. 

The  trench  was  extended  another  64  ft.  westwards  as  far  as 
the  reservoir  fence,  the  turf  and  humus  being  removed  down  to 
the  natural  shale,  but  apart  from  a number  of  shallow  and  ir- 
regular depressions  in  the  shale,  which  appeared  quite  natural, 
there  were  no  features  to  note.  The  usual  scatter  of  pottery,  one 
flint  and  one  piece  of  chert,  both  unworked,  were  the  only  finds. 

Trench  III.  Although  there  was  a considerable  area  north 
of  the  reservoir  available  for  digging,  this  had  clearly  been  the 
upper  slope  of  the  hill,  which  falls  away  sharply  on  this  side, 
before  it  had  been  levelled  up  by  dumped  material  excavated 
during  the  reservoir’s  construction.  There  was,  however,  just 
room  between  the  slope  of  the  reservoir  bank  and  the  fence  to 
dig  a narrow  trench  on  the  west  side.  This  (TR.  Ill)  was  20  ft. 
long,  its  middle  point  coinciding  with  the  middle  point  of  the 
side  of  the  reservoir. 

This  proved  so  disturbed  in  modern  times  that  it  has  not 
been  thought  necessary  to  publish  the  section.  For  the  first  12  ft. 
from  the  north  there  was  9 ins.  of  “reservoir  clay”,  viz.  material 
thrown  out  from  that  excavation.  Below,  a narrow  band  of  brown 
earth,  possibly  the  former  ground  surface,  with  natural  clay 
beneath.  At  the  south  end  was  a ditch  or  depression  nearly  4 ft. 
deep  filled  with  brown  earth  and  stones.  At  a depth  of  3 ft.  3 ins. 
ran,  slightly  diagonally  across  the  trench,  a 4 ins.  brick  field 
drain  of  un jointed  lengths  of  tiles. 



Mr.  R.  Thomas  of  Crayke  Castle,  informed  us  that  under  this 
part  of  the  reservoir  there  had  previously  been  a tennis  court  so 
that  levelling  had  probably  destroyed  whatever  ancient  stratifica- 
tion there  had  been. 


Although  meagre  and  disappointing,  the  finds  provided 
traces  of  at  least  three  periods. 

(a)  The  finding  of  a second  piece  of  undoubted  Roman  box 
tile  from  a hypocaust  flue  within  30  yds.  of  that  found  in  1948 
confirmed  the  presence  of  a substantial  Roman  building  not  very 
far  away.  During  the  mechanical  excavation  of  the  reservoir  both 
Mr.  Thomas  and  Mrs.  Knowles  noticed  large  areas  of  black  material 
and,  incidentally,  informed  me  about  it  independently.  The 
former  described  it  as  a large  saucer-shaped  area  in  the  northern 
half  of  the  reservoir  about  10  ins.  thick  of  burnt  material  con- 
taining many  pig  bones.  The  latter  observed  a charcoal  layer 
on  the  N.E.  side  and  noted  the  depth  as  4 ft.  from  the  modern 
surface.  These  may  be  connected  with  the  hypocaust  furnace. 

(b)  The  next  period  is  that  represented  by  the  skeletons 
but  as  there  were  no  associated  objects  they  cannot  be  dated 
with  any  precision.  All  that  can  be  said  is  that  their  careful 
East-West  orientation  and  extended  position  made  it  certain  that 
they  belong  to  Christian  times  and  that  their  date  of  burial  must 
be  at  an  unknown,  but  possibly  very  considerable  period  prior  to 
the  XIVth  century. 

As  to  why  they  were  there  at  all  no  certain  answer  can  be 
given.  Since  they  adjoin  immediately  the  modern  churchyard 
their  presence  may  merely  mean  that  the  burial  ground  was 
formerly  more  extensive.  The  difference  in  levels,  perhaps, 
supports  this  notion.  The  fact  that,  apart  from  one  doubtful 
group  (K)  all  are  certainly  male,  might  raise  the  possibility  that 
this  was  the  cemetery  of  the  monastery  founded  by  St.  Cuthbert, 
of  which  the  history  is  so  obscure  that  doubts  have  been  thrown 
upon  its  existence. 

On  the  other  hand  the  burials  are  at  once  deliberate  and 
disorderly  giving  rather  an  impression  of  haste  and  lack  of  pre- 
paration, such  as  might  reflect  some  sudden  disaster,  plague  or 
massacre.  There  were  no  injuries,  however,  to  support  any  idea  of 
violent  death. 

(c)  The  third  period  (quite  unconnected  with  the  skeletons), 
is  that  of  the  pottery,  dateable  from  its  own  internal  evidence  and 
given  a terminus  post  quem  by  the  jetton.  The  signs  of  industrial 
working  in  TR.  I also  belong  to  this  period  and  it  may  be  noted 
that  Mr.  Shepherd  observed  the  presence  of  ironstone  in  the 
eastern  side  of  the  hill  in  1937. 1 

1 Op.  cit.  p.  273. 



The  roof  tiles  and  ditch  in  TR.  II  may  be  connected  with 
the  '‘Great  Barn”  which  is  known  to  have  stood  thereabouts  and 
is  marked  on  XVIIth  and  XVIIIth  century  maps.  In  com- 
paratively recent  times  the  site  of  TR.  II  was  used  as  a kitchen 
garden  and  the  wall  may  have  belonged  to  that. 

As  an  attempt  to  find  a Roman  site  at  Crayke  this  trial 
excavation  was  abortive,  but  this  is  not  surprising  in  view  of  the 
agglomeration  of  buildings  from  mediaeval  times  to  the  recent 
reservoir  which  largely  cover  the  hill  top  and  must  have  all 
contributed  to  the  destruction  of  ancient  remains.  Careful  enquiry 
seemed  to  show  that  no  Roman  or  other  remains  were  found  in 
the  churchyard  during  grave  digging,  including  the  north  side 
where  the  burial  area  has  been  extended  in  recent  times. 

The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  possibly  some  sacred 
site  crowned  this  eminence  in  Roman  times  but,  if  so,  it  would 
seem  scarcely  possible  to  find  it  now.  The  only  line  still  open  to 
further  research  would  appear  to  be  in  the  grounds  of  Crayke 
Hall,  working  from  the  western  limit  of  the  finds  in  1937. 

The  Mediaeval  Pottery. 

By  H.  E.  Jean  le  Patourel. 

In  the  pottery  found  at  Crayke  the  most  interesting  pieces 
come  from  the  "pottery  layer”  of  TR.  I.  Apart  from  one  small 
calcite-gritted  sherd  which  is  unlikely  to  be  later  in  date  than  the 
early  twelfth  century,  this  group  fits  readily  into  what  is  already 
known  of  fourteenth  century  pottery.  Its  association  with  a 
jetton  of  Edward  IPs  time  is  most  valuable  confirmatory  evidence 
and  suggests  a date  rather  towards  the  middle  of  the  century  for 
these  pots. 

Most  of  the  sherds  found  are  small  and  there  are  rarely 
more  than  two  pieces  of  any  one  pot,  though  there  is  often 
reasonably  clear  indication  of  shape.  Cooking  pots  predominate 
among  the  finds  and  are  usually  unglazed,  but  a few  bowls  are 
included  and  also  the  remains  of  a small  number  of  jugs.  In  view 
of  the  fragmentary  nature  of  the  material  it  has  seemed  best  to 
classify  them  according  to  the  type  of  ware  used  rather  than 
according  to  shape.  Leaving  aside  the  stray  sherd  mentioned 
above,  there  are  five  types  of  ware. 

(a)  Gritty  Ware.  This  is  the  most  frequent  fabric  found. 
It  is  common  in  Yorkshire  from  the  twelfth  until  at  least  the 
fourteenth  century,  though  normally  it  is  fired  rather  harder  than 
this  pottery  from  Crayke,  which  can  easily  be  pared  down  with  a 
knife.  Its  use  both  here  and  elsewhere  appears  to  be  confined 
largely  to  the  making  of  cooking  pots  and  bowls.  The  most 
common  type  of  northern  cooking  pot  is  rather  taller  than  its 
greatest  girth,  with  a rounded  base  and  usually,  at  least  on  the 
earlier  pots,  with  marked  rilling  of  the  sides.  Three  variants  of 
rim  form  have  been  recognised  ("Excavations  in  Carlisle,  1953,” 



Fig.  7. 

Scale  — 



Cumb.  and  Westmorland  Antiq.  Soc.  Trans.  N.S.  Vol.  LV.,  p.  87), 
a squared  rim,  a rounded,  clubbed  form  and  a flanged  rim.  Al- 
though examples  of  each  occur  apparently  contemporaneously, 
there  is  some  evidence  that  a square  or  angular  form  was  most 
popular  in  the  twelfth  century,  followed  in  the  thirteenth  by  a 
preference  for  the  rounded  form.  By  the  fourteenth  century  a 
fairly  wide  flange  had  become  almost  universal,  though  the  older 
forms  are  still  occasionally  found.  The  majority  of  the  pots  from 
Crayke  are  of  the  late,  flanged  type.  They  may  be  compared  with 
fourteenth  century  pottery  from  the  East  Riding  (see  “Two 
Mediaeval  Sites  in  the  Vale  of  Pickering”  Studies  in  Yorkshire 
Archaeology  No.  I by  T.  C.  M.  Brewster).  These  flanged  pots  are 
well  suited  to  take  lids,  although  the  small  number  of  lids  found 
in  the  north  suggests  that  if  they  were  used  they  must  often  have 
been  of  wood.  A more  shallow  type  of  cooking  pot  (No.  8)  was 
probably  not  made  much  earlier  than  the  fourteenth  century. 
Parallels  exist  both  at  Carlisle  and  in  the  East  Riding. 

1.  Cooking  pot  in  rather  soft  gritty  ware  with  flanged  rim; 
grey  core,  light  red  surfaces. 

2.  Similar  in  light  grey. 

3.  Similar;  light  red  surfaces,  some  blackening  on  the 

4.  Similar  light  red  ware,  less  pronounced  rim  flange. 

5.  Similar,  pink.  This  more  rectangular  rim  is  common  in 
the  twelfth  century.  There  is  nothing  to  show  whether 
this  sherd  is  a survival,  or  whether  this  form  persisted 
along  side  the  flanged  rims. 

6.  Similar  ware,  buff.  Cooking  pot  rim. 

7.  Similar,  buff  with  grey  core.  Cooking  pot  rim. 

8.  Similar  ware,  pink  core,  pinkish  buff  surfaces. 

Shallow  cooking  pot  of  fourteenth-century  type. 

(i b ) Sandy  Ware. 

This  rather  harsh,  sandy  fabric  is  used  for  cooking  pots, 
small  bowls  and  jugs.  Several  tall  jugs  or  pitchers  in  this  fabric 
are  known  in  York,  with  a partial  dark  green  glaze,  and  though 
they  have  not  been  precisely  dated  they  are  thought  to  belong  to 
the  fourteenth  century.  The  pieces  preserved  at  Crayke  are  very 
small,  but  the  rim  sections  and  glaze  suggest  similar  vessels. 

9.  Small  bowl  in  slightly  sandy  buff  ware,  with  grey  core. 
Half  an  inch  from  the  base  the  bowl  has  been  trimmed 
with  a knife.  Green  glaze  has  covered  part  of  the  in- 
terior, but  it  is  largely  chipped  off. 

10.  Part  of  a cooking  pot  in  similar  buff  ware.  It  has  a 
spot  of  green  glaze  on  the  exterior.  This  pot  has  a more 
pronounced  neck  than  those  in  the  gritty  ware. 

11.  Similar  ware,  light  pink  cooking  pot  rim. 



12.  Rim  of  a jug  in  similar  ware.  Two  similar  rims  were 
found  in  the  topsoil. 

(c)  Hard  Gritty  Ware. 

The  third  type  of  ware  may  be  a variant  of  the  first  though 
it  is  not  found  earlier  than  the  thirteenth  century.  It  differs 
chiefly  in  the  very  hard  firing  to  which  it  had  been  subjected. 
Although  on  other  sites  class  (a)  ware  is  often  of  a harder  quality 
than  that  found  at  Crayke,  it  never  attains  the  hardness  of  the 
type  under  discussion.  The  only  example  of  this  ware  illustrated 
is  No.  13,  the  base  of  a bowl  of  a form  well  known  in  the  West 
Riding.  (See  Kirkstall  Abbey  Excavations  1950-54,  Publications  of 
the  Thoresby  Society  XLIII  (1954)  pp.  27,  50).  A further  example, 

Fig.  8.  Scale  = T 

not  illustrated,  is  part  of  a base  showing  part  of  the  stacking  ring 
in  green  glaze.  These  stacking  rings  and  the  corresponding 
roughness  on  rims  which  have  had  to  be  broken  away  from  the 
bases  to  which  they  have  been  fused  in  the  kiln,  are  sometimes  - 
held  to  be  wasters,  and  as  such,  evidence  of  kiln  activity  in  the 
immediate  neighbourhood.  In  fact  one  or  both  of  these  features 
are  very  common  on  late  mediaeval  pots  in  the  north  of  England, 
and  it  seems  likely  that  these  vessels  were  normally  used  unless 
the  distortion  or  disfigurement  were  so  great  as  to  make  this 

13.  Base  of  bowl  in  very  hard  gritty  ware.  The  interior  is 
covered  with  thick  green  glaze. 



(i i ) Smooth  Red  Ware.  This  class  might  appropriately  be 
called  “flower  pot”.  The  only  example  of  this  ware  that  can  be 
dated  is  a small  unglazed  jug  found  at  York  and  dated  by  coins 
to  the  end  of  the  14th  or  beginning  of  the  15th  century.  Nothing 
is  known  of  its  origins.  The  sherds  found  at  Crayke  are  too  small 
for  illustration.  They  are  all  glazed. 

(e)  Lightly  Gritted  Ware.  This  is  differentiated  from  class 
(a)  which  it  resembles,  because  it  seems  of  better  quality  and  is 
more  lightly  gritted.  It  is  a pleasant  ware  to  handle  and  is  only 
used  for  jugs.  No.  14  compares  closely  with  a jug  from  Kirby 
Malzeard,  which  was  found  in  association  with  a 14th  century 
cooking  pot.  [Mediaeval  Catalogue , London  Museum  Catalogues 
No.  7,  p.  225.  The  Kirby  pot  has  no  feet). 

14.  Rim  and  handle  of  jug  in  lightly  gritted,  buff  ware  with 
partial  apple  green  glaze.  The  rim  is  rough  where  it 
has  adhered  to  the  pot  above  it  during  firing. 

15.  Rim  of  jug  in  similar  ware,  pink  with  partial  green  glaze. 

It  is  seldom  possible  to  date  mediaeval  pottery  precisely. 
The  jetton  with  which  this  group  is  associated  belongs  to  the 
time  of  Edward  II  (1307-1327).  It  could  have  been  used  for  a 
considerable  time  after  that.  No  pottery  of  known  15th-century 
date  is  included  among  this  group,  though  late  pottery  was  found 
in  TR.  II  at  some  distance  away  from  it.  The  most  reasonable 
date  for  the  pottery  seems  to  be  about  the  middle  of  the  century. 
Of  all  periods  in  the  development  of  mediaeval  pottery  in  the 
north,  the  14th  century  is  the  most  obscure.  Material  such  as 
this  is  proportionately  valuable. 

THE  JETTON.  This  small  bronze  piece,  19  mm.  in  diameter, 
was  found  in  TR.  I at  18  ft.  in  the  upper  part  of  the  pottery 
layer.  It  has  been  examined  by  Mr.  R.  H.  M.  Dolley  who  states, 
“It  is  one  of  a large  class  which  can  be  dated  with  some  confidence 
to  “Temp.  Edward  II”  (1307-1327). 

The  full  description  is  as  follows  : — 

Obv.  Three  cinquefoils,  or  roses,  separated  by  three  pellets, 
within  a granulated  inner  circle;  a border  of  pellets  in  place  of  a 

Rev.  A short  cross  recercellee,  cantoned  by  pellets  within  a 
granulated  inner  circle;  a border  of  pellets  in  place  of  a legend. 
See  Barnard,  The  Casting  Counter  and  Counter  Board,  Plate  I. 
24/26  mule.” 

Report  on  the  Skeletal  Remains. 

By  Professor  Roger  Warwick. 


A.  Fragment  of  collar  bone  and  skull  of  an  adult  male. 
Age  early  twenties. 



B.  Fragments  of  4 femora,  4 humeri  and  part  of  sacrum 
and  several  vertebrae,  both  these  latter  showing  signs  of 
osteo-arthritis.  All  probably  male,  at  least  two  males. 
Age  probably  over  40. 

C.  A jumble  of  fragmentary  and  eroded  bones,  including 
legs,  arms,  vertebrae  and  a fairly  good  skull,  with  a few 
fragments  of  another. 

Two  adult  males,  one  very  muscular  and  aged  35-40, 
the  other  of  unknown  age. 

D.  Includes  a mandible,  sacrum,  three  thigh  bones,  two  arm 
bones  and  a shin  bone.  The  mandible  is  youngish  and 
male,  the  shin  bone  probably  much  older. 

There  appear  to  be  two  adult  males,  one  aged  about  25, 
the  other  perhaps  over  40. 

E.  A fragmentary  skull  and  one  worn  tooth.  If  the  latter 
belongs  to  the  skull,  food  must  have  been  coarse,  for  this 
represents  a youngish  male.  Age  early  thirties. 

F.  Fragmentary  thigh  bone,  rather  large,  one  fragment 
bearing  a pit  which  may  have  resulted  from  an  injury. 
Also  one  foot  bone  and  a pelvic  fragment.  Adult  male, 
rather  hefty,  age  uncertain. 

G.  A poor  skull  of  adult  male.  No  injuries  apparent,  few 
teeth  preserved,  dental  wear  marked,  dolichocephalic. 
Age  30-35. 

H.  Fragments  of  vertebrae,  sacrum,  two  femora,  two  hip 
bones,  two  humeri,  small  fragment  of  jaw  bone  with  one 
worn  molar.  All  bones  probably  male  but  possibly  may 
not  belong  to  one  individual  as  the  sacrum  appears 
younger  than  the  vertebrae.  At  least  one  adult  male. 
Age  over  35. 

I.  Fragments  of  a skull  and  jawbone.  The  very  worn 
teeth  are  not  necessarily  a sign  of  age  but  the  sutures 
suggest  an  elderly  male  perhaps  over  40. 

J.  Fragments  of  a skull  and  of  various  limb  bones,  all  very 
eroded.  Probably  one  adult  male,  age  uncertain. 

K.  A mixed  group  indicating  two  individuals.  The  frag- 
mentary skull  suggests  a female.  There  are  four  shin 
bones  all  broken,  two  being  small  and  probably  belonging 
to  the  skull.  There  is  also  a fragment  of  a femur  probably 
from  an  adolescent  male. 

There  thus  appears  to  be  one  female,  aged  25-30  and  one 
adolescent  male. 

L.  A mass  of  bones,  many  fragmentary,  all  from  the  legs, 
except  fragments  of  right  humerus,  ulna  and  radius,  of 
one  adult  male.  They  include  fragments  of  both  right 
and  left,  femora,  tibiae,  fibulae  and  pelvic  bones,  six 
tarsal  and  three  metatarsal  bones.  One  fibula  shows  a 
healed  fracture. 

M.  Fragments  of  a skull.  Sex  uncertain.  Age  40-45. 




By  B.  R.  Hartley,  F.S.A. 

1.  Form  37.  Ovolo  with  straight  tongue,  as  used  by 
CINNAMVS.  The  figures  are: — Dech.  146  (0.234)  Perseus;  Dech. 
355  (0.605)  satyr. 

Perhaps  by  CINNAMVS  or  an  associate,  in  any  case  certainly 
Antonine,  c.  A.D.  150-180.  Found  at  Easingwold.  (From  Mrs. 

2.  Form  37.  From  a free-style  bowl?  The  figures  are: — 
Pan — Dech.  413  (0.711);  Hercules — Dech.  449  (0.774).  Crayke 
Hall,  tennis  court. 

It  is  impossible  to  attribute  this  piece  to  any  particular 
potter,  though  both  figure  types  were  commonly  used  by 
CINNAMVS.  The  glaze  and  fabric  are  consistent  with  an 
Antonine  date. 



By  John  Addy. 

The  parishioners  of  Penistone  and  the  feoffees  of  the 
Grammar  School,  having  successfully  ejected  the  Revd.  Joseph 
Horsfall  from  the  mastership  of  the  school,  proceeded  on  18th 
April  1786  to  elect  a new  master. 

The  most  suitable  candidate  appeared  to  be  Jonathon 
Wood,1  at  least  so  far  as  his  testimonials  were  concerned,  for  he 
had  been  supplied  with  these  by  a number  of  influential  people 
in  Cheshire.2  He  was  duly  elected  and  complied  with  the  regula- 
tions concerning  schoolmasters  in  that  he  received  the  Holy 
Communion  at  Penistone  Parish  Church  in  accordance  with  the 
Test  Act,3  subscribed  to  the  39  Articles  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer4  and  presented  his  nomination,  together  with  his  testi- 
monials, to  the  Archbishop  of  York  who  then  licensed  him  on 
May  10th  1787.5 

The  feoffees  offered  him  new  articles  to  sign,  together  with 
a bond  for  £500.  These  were  designed  to  prevent  the  appointment 
of  a master  who  simultaneously  held  a cure  of  souls,  as  Horsfall 
had  done.6  Having  been  duly  licensed  and  established  in  the 
school.  Wood  inserted  the  following  advertisement  in  the  Leeds 
Intelligencer  and  the  York  Courant.7 


Mr.  Wood-Master  of  the  Grammar  School  at  Penistone — 
wishes  to  acquaint  his  FRIENDS  and  the  PUBLIC  that  he  has 
fitted  up  a very  pleasant  and  convenient  house  where  YOUTH 
may  be  genteely  boarded  and  educated  in  CLASSICAL  and 
MATHEMATICAL  learning  for  thirteen  guineas  per  annum. 
Entrance  Ten  Shillings  and  Sixpence.  YOUNG  GENTLEMEN 
not  boarded  in  the  HOUSE  may  be  taught  READING,  WRITING 
and  ENGLISH  GRAMMAR  for  Five  Shillings  and  Sixpence  per 

1 Born  Tadcaster.  Educated  at  Tadcaster  Grammar  School.  Assistant 
Master  at  J.  Bean’s  school,  Leeds.  Senior  Master  at  Nantwich  Grammar 
School.  Died  at  Penistone  April  1836.  (Grammar  School  Archives). 

2 These  were  the  Revd.  G.  Cotton,  brother  to  Robert  Cotton  M.P.  for 
Cheshire.  T.  Wettenhall,  brother  in  law  to  Sir  Thomas  Blackett  of  Bretton. 
Robert  Hill  brother  to  Roland  Hill  M.P.  for  Shropshire. 

3 24  Charles  2,  C2. 

4 Act  of  Uniformity,  12  Charles  2,  C4. 

5 R.IV  N 2185/6  Borthwick  Institute,  York.  Copy  of  the  licence  in 
the  Leeds  University  Museum  of  Educational  History. 

6 Note  that  in  spite  of  the  new  articles,  Wood’s  successor  in  1836  was 
also  vicar  of  Penistone. 

7 June  1787  Leeds  Intelligencer. 


quarter— ARITHMETIC  and  the  LANGUAGES  for  Seven 
Shillings  and  Sixpence  per  quarter.  Mr.  Wood  gratefully  acknow- 
ledges the  great  encouragement  he  has  hitherto  received  and 
engages  to  attend  to  the  Instruction  and  Behaviour  of  Pupils 
entrusted  to  his  care. 

Wood  undertook  extensive  repairs  and  fitted  up  the  school 
house  for  the  accommodation  of  boarders.  The  detailed  accounts 
have  survived  and  make  interesting  reading,  as  also  do  the  balance 
sheets  for  the  first  ten  years  of  his  mastership.1 

He  was  not,  however,  destined  to  be  left  in  peace.  In  1797 
complaints  began  to  circulate  concerning  the  quality  of  his  teaching. 
These  came  to  a head  in  1805,  when  the  inhabitants  of  Penistone 
petitioned  the  feoffees,  through  the  Churchwardens,  for  a public 
enquiry  into  the  conduct  of  the  master,  and  the  organisation  of 
the  school.  It  is  ironical  to  note  that  while  the  energies  of  the 
country  were  being  expended  in  the  struggle  with  Napoleon,  the 
energies  of  the  people  of  Penistone  were  directed  upon  a struggle 
with  the  master  of  the  Grammar  School. 

The  feoffees  invited  written  complaints,  which  being  sent 
in,  were  duly  investigated  on  November  1st  1805,  when  an  enquiry 
was  held  at  the  Grammar  School,  Wood  being  present  to  examine 
the  petitioners.2  One  William  Shaw  complained  that,  “when  he 
sent  his  sons  to  school  they  could  read  a chapter  from  the  New 
Testament,  but  they  never  improved  at  School”.  When  questioned 
by  Wood,  he  replied  that  his  sons  were  not  regular  attenders. 
John  Hardy,  of  Penistone,  had  a long  list  of  complaints  about  the 
master’s  absence  from  school  during  school  hours,  his  late  arrival 
at  school,  “he  never  comes  before  9 o’clock  in  the  morning  especially 
in  winter”.  He  considered  school  holidays  to  be  excessive,  “the 
last  16  weeks  preceeding  Midsummer  last  there  was  no  school  on 
4 whole  days  and  2 half  days;  that  there  was  no  discipline  in  the 
school,  and  the  ‘Latten  Grammar’  was  badly  taught.  At  his 
cross  examination  by  the  feoffees,  he  answered  that  he  had  made 
‘frequent  complaints  to  the  master  but  he  takes  no  notice’. 

Isaac  Marsh  went  one  step  further,  for  he  produced  some  of 
his  son’s  written  work  in  English  and  Arithmetic,  in  which  'several 
words  are  wrong  speled  and  money  sums  wrong  cast  up’,  while 
Thomas  Mitchell,  of  Gunthwaite,  did  not  send  his  boys  to  Penistone 
because,  ‘there  was  no  good  Schoolars  made  there’.  The  highlight 
of  the  proceedings  was  the  complaint  by  Daniel  Charlesworth  that 
the  master  employed  his  sons  to  run  errands  for  him  during  lesson 
time.  At  his  cross  examination  he  admitted  that  he  never  sent 
his  sons  to  school,  ‘in  Haytime,  Harvest  or  Winter’. 

1 Building  parlour  chimney,  2 days  . . . 3/4d.;  Pulling  down  and  re- 
building back  kitchen  25/-;  New  floor  boards  and  3 window  frames  for 
boarders  in  Garrett  and  a new  door  for  the  necessary  house.  £2.  8.  5£d. 
(Grammar  School  Archives). 

2 Seven  complaints  have  survived.  Photostats  are  in  the  Leeds 
University  Museum  of  Educational  History. 


Wood  survived  all  this  trouble,  and  continued  in  his  post 
as  master  of  the  school,  publishing  a biography  of  Dr.  Nicholas 
Sanderson  a famous  pupil  of  the  school  under  Nathan  Staniforth.1 
Wood  also  figures  in  the  Endowed  Schools  Inquiry  Report  of 
1827. 2 This  gives  a summary  of  the  history  of  the  school  as  then 
known  and  makes  the  following  remarks,  ‘The  present  master 
teaches  only  reading,  writing  and  accounts,  hence  the  school  only 
teaches  elementary  subjects.  The  present  master  was  appointed 
in  1786.  There  are  complaints  about  his  conduct  which,  con- 
sidering his  advanced  age,  we  have  not  thought  it  expedient  to 
enquire  into  closely’.  The  feoffees  are  however  advised  to  appoint 
as  his  successor,  a master  who  is  qualified  to  support  the  institution 
as  a Grammar  School.3 

Wood  died  in  the  spring  of  1836,  and  the  feoffees  advertised 
for  a master  to  be  elected  on  10th  October  1836.  There  were 
twenty-five  applicants  for  the  post,  and  three  candidates  were 
chosen  to  attend  the  examinations.4  These  were,  John  Braith- 
waite  of  Kirby  Lonsdale,  supported  by  the  Bishop  of  London, 
the  editor  of  the  ‘Preston  Pilot’  and  the  corporation  of  Garstang. 
William  Peeke  of  Mulgrave  Acadamy,  Scarborough,  supported  by 
Doctors  Commons  and  the  Master  of  Pontefract  Grammar 
School;  the  Revd.  Samuel  Sunderland,  M.A.,  vicar  of  Penistone, 
supported  by  the  Master  and  Fellows  of  Clare  College,  Cambridge 
and  the  inhabitants  of  Penistone.  Sunderland  had  worked  hard 
to  get  himself  appointed,  though  the  statutes  of  1786  had  ex- 
cluded from  the  mastership  any  person  who  held  a cure  of  souls, 
nevertheless  Sunderland  was  elected  master  on  October  22nd  1836. 

Sunderland  subscribed  to  the  statutes  and  undertook  not  to 
take  -Holy  Orders  without  permission,  to  live  in  the  schoolhouse 
and  not  sublet;  to  admit  boys  who  were  able  to  read  the  Bible 
fluently,  and  to  teach  Latin,  Greek  and  English  free,  while  other 
subjects  were  to  be  taught  according  to  a scale  of  charges.  Holidays 
were  to  be  four  weeks  at  Christmas,  four  weeks  at  Midsummer 
beginning  on  the  Friday  before  the  Nativity  of  St.  John  Baptist.5 

Among  the  surviving  documents  for  this  period  are  the 
admission  registers  for  the  whole  of  Sunderland’s  mastership, 
1836-1855.  These  show  the  smallest  numbers  of  boys  at  the 

1 Published  in  the  Yorkshire  Magazine  or  Northern  Star.  See  also  the 
memorial  to  Nicholas  Sanderson  in  the  chancel  of  Penistone  Church. 

2 Endowed  Schools  Enquiry  Report,  Vol.  18,  p.  194ff.  (Leeds  City 

3 Details  are  also  given  of  the  Wordsworth  Charity  that  explain  why 
the  Westminster  Assembly  Catechism  was  used.  In  1703  Samuel  Words- 
worth left  £400  to  the  vicar,  master  and  usher  of  Penistone  School.  The 
money  was  invested  in  Netherthong  estate,  and  out  of  the  revenue,  3/5 
went  to  the  vicar  provided  he  preached  every  Sunday  morning  and  on  St. 
John  Baptist’s  day.  2/5  to  the  master  and  usher  in  proportion  to  their 
salary  provided  they  taught  the  Assembly’s  Catechism.  This  endowment 
still  exists. 

4 Letters  of  Application  1836.  (Grammar  School  Archives). 

5 The  church  is  dedicated  to  St.  John  Baptist  and  Penistone  fair  falls 
in  the  octave  of  the  feast. 


school  to  be  32  in  1847,  and  the  largest  56  in  1855.  Of  these 
approximately  50%  were  taught  writing  in  books,  and  the  re- 
mainder writing  on  slates.1  A famous  pupil  of  Penistone  School 
was  Ebenezer  Elliott,  of  Rotherham,  the  corn  law  rhymer  who 
spent  a period  of  his  boyhood  at  Thurlstone  in  1790.  Sunderland 
was  accidentally  killed  on  18th  July  1855  while  on  an  excursion 
to  Chatsworth  House  with  the  Sunday  School  teachers,  the 
wagonette  in  which  they  were  travelling  overturned  near  Rowsley 
Station  and  he  was  thrown  out  and  killed.2 

Once  again  trouble  broke  out  when  the  matter  of  appointing 
a successor  came  up  before  the  feoffees.  At  a meeting  on  18th 
August  1855  a deputation  from  the  parishioners  appeared  before 
the  feoffees  and  presented  a memorial  stating,  'that  your 
memorialists  being  deeply  impressed  with  the  importance  of 
popular  education  and  taking  into  consideration  the  costly  efforts 
which  are  being  made  by  all  Sects  and  Parties  and  aided  by 
Parliament  itself  for  the  establishing  of  cheap  schools,  earnestly 
pray  that  you  would  make  the  Penistone  Grammar  School  a Free 
School  for  the  teaching  of  Reading,  Writing  and  Arithmetic  and 
not  allow  its  ample  endowments  to  continue  productive  of  little 
benefit  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  Parish  of  Penistone’.  The 
Petitioners  also  stated  that  the  next  master  should  hold  no  other 
appointment  of  any  kind  whatsoever  at  the  same  time.  The 
feoffees  left  the  matter  for  further  consideration  at  a later  meeting.3 

The  meeting  of  September  3rd  1855  never  discussed  the 
matter  but  drew  up  the  conditions  which  the  masters  should  in 
future  observe,  and  also  framed  the  advertisement  for  insertion  in 
the  press.  This  duly  appeared  on  13th  September  1855  in  the 
Leeds  Mercury,  Sheffield  and  Rotherham  Independent,  and  the 
Wakefield  Journal.  There  were  numerous  applications  for  the 
post,  one  of  which  was  that  of  the  Revd.  Robert  Topham  who 
had  been  usher  to  the  Revd.  Samuel  Sunderland  for  four  years. 
A petition  was  presented  to  the  Earl  of  Wharncliffe  that  his 
application  should  be  rejected,  on  the  grounds  that,  'Topham  is 
attempting  to  purchase  the  advowson  of  Penistone  from  Mr. 
Bosville  who  is  needy’.4  Mr.  Shackleton,  of  Penistone,  made  a 
request  that,  'it  is  contrary  to  right  feeling  or  common  sense  to 
maintain  Grammar  Schools  like  Penistone,  as  an  old  and  effete 

foundation and  in  the  importance  of  rudimental  education 

of  the  working  classes  of  this  country,  the  Grammar  School  should 
be  converted  to  a free  school’.  Evidently  attacks  on  Grammar 
Schools  are  not  confined  to  twentieth  century  politics. 

The  Trustees  held  a meeting  on  the  15th  October  to  name 
a date  for  the  examination  of  the  candidates,  and  the  election  of 
the  master.  Unfortunately  a deputation  headed  by  the  same 

1 ls£  Earl  of  Wharncliffe  papers,  No.  466 — 472.  Sheffield  City  Library. 

2 See  memorial  to  Samuel  Sunderland  on  the  south  wall  of  the  chancel 
of  the  parish  church. 

3 Grammar  School  Archives. 

4 ls£  Earl  of  Wharncliffe  papers,  No.  471.  Sheffield  City  Library. 


Shackleton  who  had  made  an  earlier  attack  on  the  school,  attended 
the  meeting,  and  served  a notice  on  the  Trustees.  This  notice 
was  to  the  effect  that,  the  parishioners  were  dissatisfied  at  the 
manner  and  terms  of  the  advertisement  of  September  13th,  T 
give  notice  that  the  school  being  a free  school  for  the  inhabitants 
of  Penistone,  the  appointment  of  a master,  in  such  a manner  and 
on  such  terms,  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the  Inhabitants, 
proceedings  will  be  taken  to  enforce  a proper  administration  of 
the  trusts’.1  The  Trustees  at  this  withdrew  their  advertisement, 
and  amended  it  so  that  the  Master  should  have  no  more  than 
six  boarders,  and  that  those  pupils  who  took  Mathematics, 
Trigonometry,  History  or  Geography  must  provide  their  own 
books,  instruments  and  slates. 

A new  master  was  elected  on  October  29th  1855  from  a 
short  list  of  two.  These  were  the  Revd.  John  Wesley  Aldom, 
curate  of  Penistone,  and  William  Tate  of  Rochdale.  Aldom  was 
elected,  being  a graduate  M.A.  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin.  He 
promptly  introduced  revised  scales  of  charges,  of  five  shillings  per 
quarter  for  all  subjects  except  Latin,  Greek  and  English,  which 
were  taught  free.  Aldom  resigned  his  mastership  upon  his  pre- 
ferment to  a living  in  the  diocese  of  Chester  on  10th  April  1867. 
His  resignation  produced  a mass  of  correspondence  with  the 
Schools  Enquiry  Commission,  which  advised  the  appointment  of 
a temporary  master  until  the  report  of  the  commissioners  on  the 
future  of  the  school  was  available.  An  advertisement  was  inserted 
in  the  Leeds  Mercury,  Yorkshire  Post,  Midland  Counties  Herald, 
and  Manchester  Examiner  for  a temporary  master  at  an  increased 
salary  of  £110  per  annum.2 

There  followed  a rapid  succession  of  masters,  some  accepting 
the  post  and  resigning  before  taking  up  duty.  The  first  of  these 
was  Alfred  Stearne,  B.A.,  assistant  master  at  Richmond  Grammar 
School  (Yorks.),  who  held  office  for  three  months.  The  Trustees 
then  appointed  George  Curtis  Price,  B.A.,  to  succeed  Stearne, 
adding  a note  to  the  appointment  that,  'if  he  declines  the  post 
the  same  is  to  go  to  Walter  Mooney  Hatch.3  In  an  endeavour  to 
find  a master  who  would  remain,  the  Trustees  undertook  several 
major  repairs  to  the  school  but  even  modernization  failed  to 
retain  a master.4  However,  on  the  9th  September  1867  Price 
declined  the  mastership,  which  was  immediately  accepted  by 
Walter  Hatch,  with  disastrous  results.  His  first  action  was  to 
revise  the  scale  of  charges  for  subjects  taught,  retaining  only 
Latin  and  Greek  as  free  subjects,  the  others  to  be  taught  at  a 
charge  of  one  guinea  per  quarter  per  subject.  The  result  was 
inevitable,  for  Hatch  resigned  in  despair  on  15th  January  1868 
having  had  during  that  time  only  one  scholar,  and  he  for  one 

1 Grammar  School  Archives. 

2 ls£  Earl  of  Wharncliffe  papers,  No.  471.  Sheffield  City  Library. 

3 Trustees  Minute  Book  1867-1886.  Grammar  School  Archives. 

4 Ibid. 


half  day.  Needless  to  say  the  Trustees  immediately  reduced  the 
charges  to  seven  and  sixpence  per  quarter. 

By  February  1868  a new  master  had  appeared,  Theophilus 
Jackson,  who  agreed  to  put  into  practice  the  recommendations  of 
the  Charity  Commissioners  which  had  now  arrived.1  Unfortunately 
he  did  not  enjoy  good  health  and  in  1877  he  tendered  his  resignation 
to  the  Trustees.  He  must  have  proved  a successful  master  in 
what  had  become  a difficult  school,  for  the  inhabitants  of  Penistone 
petitioned  him  to  continue  in  office.  He  accordingly  withdrew  his 
resignation  but  in  1884  the  severe  winter  weather  of  Penistone 
proved  too  much  for  him  and  he  had  to  resign.  During  his  tenure 
of  office  two  changes  were  seen  at  the  school,  one  was  the  demolition 
of  the  old  Queen  Anne  schoolmaster’s  house,  in  order  to  make  way 
for  street  widening,  and  the  other  is  the  first  recorded  report  on 
the  school  by  an  H.M.I.,  Mr.  F.  R.  Sanford. 

The  report  states  that  the  school  was  registered  as  an 
efficient  school  within  section  48  of  the  Education  Act  of  1876.2 
The  School  had  then  62  boys,  and  the  report  continues,  ‘it  ought, 
I presume,  being  a Grammar  School,  aim  to  give  a higher  kind 
of  education  to  the  boys  of  the  town  and  neighbourhood,  but  only 
a few  above  elementary  school  age  attend  it.  The  scholars  are 
orderly  and  in  the  Upper  Classes  do  fairly  well;  the  Lowest  Class 
is  backward.  The  Trustees  have  lately  improved  the  school 
building,  which  is  an  ancient  one.  It  would  be  better  if  the  number 
of  older  scholars  could  be  increased  and  the  children  under  ten 
dispensed  with’. 

As  an  entire  reorganisation  of  the  school  was  pending, 
another  temporary  master  was  appointed,  Othman  Blakey,  who 
remained  for  only  one  year,  and  was  followed  by  Harry  Hardy 
who  held  the  mastership  until  1888.  The  Charity  Commissioners 
reorganised  the  school  in  September  1886  and  on  November  28th 
the  old  Trustees,  formerly  appointed  by  the  parish  from  time 
immemorial,  resigned  and  handed  over  their  duties  to  a newly 
constituted  Board  of  Governors.  Seven  of  these  were  to  represent 
the  old  foundation  of  Thomas  Clarel,3  while  the  remaining  eight 
were  nominated  by  various  local  authorities,  i.e.  the  new  local 
boards  of  the  Townships  carved  out  of  the  ancient  parish,  and 
by  the  Elementary  School  Board  Electors.4  The  school  was  to 
be  a day  school  for  boys  and  might  include  girls.  (Boarders 
survived  until  1921  and  girls  were  admitted  in  1904,  being  housed 
in  a building  known  as  the  Tin  Tabernacle.)  The  Head  was  to 

1 This  is  set  out  in  a detailed  report  in  the  Grammar  School  Archives. 

2 30  and  40  Victoria  c.79. 

3 Frederick  Wentworth  of  Wentworth  Castle,  Earl  of  Wharncliffe, 
W.  Spencer  Stanhope  of  Cawthorne,  Thomas  Wentworth  of  Wentworth 
Castle,  John  Milner  of  Thurlstone  and  Revd.  W.  S.  Turnbull  vicar  of 

4 1 Justice  of  the  Peace  from  the  West  Riding;  1 from  Barnsley 
Grammar  School;  2 nominated  by  the  chairmen  of  the  Local  Boards  in  the 
ancient  parish  of  Penistone;  2 by  the  public  Elementary  School  Board 
Electors  and  2 by  the  School  Boards  in  the  ancient  parish. 


be  a graduate  and  had  the  powers  to  appoint  and  dismiss  his 
staff,  while  a capitation  of  30/-  per  boy  was  to  be  allowed.  The 
boys  under  eight  years  of  age  were  to  be  removed  to  the  elementary 
schools  and  none  were  to  remain  after  15  years  of  age.  The 
subjects  taught  were  to  be  English,  French,  Latin,  Geography, 
History,  Music,  Mathematics,  Natural  Science,  Drawing  and 
Drill.  The  revenues  of  the  old  foundation  and  those  of  the  Words- 
worth Charity  were  to  be  united  and  the  revenues  used  for  pro- 
viding Foundation  Scholarships  to  one  boy  each  year. 

Following  the  reorganisation,  the  temporary  master,  Harry 
Hardy  resigned,  and  the  post  was  advertised.  There  were  several 
applicants,  one  of  which  is  amusing  in  that  the  applicant,  one 
Joseph  Ohm  of  Lord  Weymouth  Grammar  School,  Warminster, 
gave  his  age,  height,  weight  and  chest  measurements.  Another 
was  Fred  Hooper,  former  Headmaster  of  Hemsworth  Grammar 
School  who  had  resigned  when  this  school  was  transferred  to 
Barnsley,  and  Samuel  Mills,  M.A.,  tutor  and  lecturer  in  music  at 
St.  John’s  College,  York.  These  were  all  unsuccessful  for  the 
post  went  to  Lionel  Adams,  M.A.,  of  Stafford  Grammar  School  who 
sent  in  18  testimonials. 

The  school  must  have  been  in  very  poor  shape  when  he 
arrived,  for  in  his  report  of  1889  Adams  stated  that  when  he 
arrived  at  Penistone  there  were  no  lesson  books,  and  he  had  to 
introduce  these  gradually  to  avoid  expense.  He  went  on  to  say 
that  the  standard  was  only  elementary,  but  the  level  was  being 
raised.  Only  12  boys  knew  any  Latin,  13  knew  some  French  and 
none  any  Euclid.  In  1890  the  school  was  to  present  its  first 
candidates  for  the  Junior  Oxford  Local  Examination.  Mr.  Adams 
stressed  that,  ‘spelling  and  writing  are  poor  since  too  many  parents 
keep  boys  away  from  school  to  run  errands,  help  in  shops  etc., 
which  interferes  with  progress’.  This  tendency  is  still  with  us 
60  years  later. 

Adams  resigned  in  1892  and  was  followed  by  Joseph  Fulford1 
under  whose  mastership  the  school  expanded,  and  the  high 
tradition  of  scholarship  was  established,  which  has  endured  to 
our  own  time.  By  1893  the  old  school  had  outgrown  its  original 
buildings,  which  were  abandoned  and  sold  when  the  school  moved 
to  larger  premises  at  Weirfield,  to  the  north  of  the  town  beyond 
the  workhouse.  From  this  building  the  present  school  has  evolved. 
The  main  block  was  erected  in  1917  and  additions  made  from 
time  to  time  since  that  date.  A sign  of  changes  in  education  was 
seen  in  1894  when  Sir  Walter  Stanhope  of  Cawthorne  opened  a 
fund  for  the  building  of  a fully  equipped  science  laboratory  on 
the  grounds  that  science  would  be  an  important  subject  in  the 
future.  The  high  standards  set  by  Joseph  Fulford  have  been  con- 
tinued under  his  successors  but  that  belongs  to  the  20th  century. 

1 Joseph  Fulford.  Born  at  Warwick,  school  Edward  VI  Birmingham. 

M.A.  Dublin.  16  years  at  Parkwood  School,  Liverpool.  4 years  at  East 

Retford  Grammar  School.  Licensed  Reader  by  the  Bishop  of  Southwell. 

Resigned  1921. 



By  Alan  Harris,  M.A. 

English  agriculture  displayed  considerable  local  variety  in 
the  seventeenth  century.  In  some  districts  a patchwork  of  hedged 
fields  covered  the  countryside;  in  others  a ‘champion’  landscape 
of  open  fields  prevailed.  Some  areas  were  famed  for  their  grass- 
lands; others  for  their  tillage.  These  contrasts  could  be  found 
within  quite  small  counties.  In  this  paper  some  of  the  major 
regional  differences  in  the  agriculture  of  the  East  Riding  during 
the  half-century  before  the  Parliamentary  enclosures  will  be 
discussed.  The  years  covered  by  this  account — approximately 
1690  to  1740 — thus  occur  near  the  end  of  the  age  of  open-field 
farming  in  much  of  the  Riding. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  several 
authors  described  what  they  had  seen  and  heard  in  the  East 
Riding  in  the  course  of  fact-finding  tours.  Used  with  discretion, 
these  accounts  provide  an  invaluable  picture  of  the  countryside 
and  farming  systems  at  a time  when  both  were  in  process  of  trans- 
formation. The  earlier,  pre-enclosure  period  is  very  much  less 
well-served  by  contemporary  writers.  Much  of  the  information 
must  be  sought  among  the  manorial  and  estate  records  which  have 
been  gathered  into  the  national  and  provincial  record  offices,  and 
in  the  thousands  of  inventories  attached  to  the  wills  of  deceased 
farmers  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries.  These  sources 
have  been  used  by  historians  in  other  counties,  but  they  remain 
largely  unexplored  in  the  East  Riding.1  Their  value,  and  some  of 
their  shortcomings,  will  be  indicated  below. 

It  is  proposed  first  of  all  to  describe  the  agricultural  land- 
scapes in  the  county  as  they  were  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth 
century  and  to  relate  these  to  the  enclosure  history  of  the  Riding; 
then  to  discuss  the  field-systems;  and  finally  the  crop  and  live- 
stock husbandry  of  the  district. 

At  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  at  least  half  the  area 
of  the  East  Riding  still  lay  unenclosed.2  It  is  not  possible  to  be 
more  precise  than  this.  The  enclosure  records  of  the  period  of 

1 See,  for  example,  W.  G.  Hoskins,  The  Leicestershire  Farmer  in  the 
Sixteenth  Century,  in  Essays  in  Leicestershire  History,  1950;  Joan  Thirsk, 
English  Peasant  Farming:  the  Agrarian  History  of  Lincolnshire  from  Tudor 
to  Recent  Times,  1957. 

2 The  data  on  enclosures  have  been  collected  from  the  acts,  awards 
and  agreements  in  the  Registry  of  Deeds  and  East  Riding  Record  Office, 
Beverley,  with  some  additional  information  from  enclosure  documents 
deposited  in  the  Parish  Chest. 





___v» a*. 

i.  milk 

Fig.  1 

The  Open  Fields  of  Beeford  in  Holderness  before  the  Enclosure  of  1766. 
Old  enclosed  land  (in  black)  lay  in  the  village.  The  two  arable  fields 
occupied  some  2,000  acres  and  the  meadows  and  pastures  1,100  acres. 


Parliamentary  enclosure  (1730-1850)  show  that  almost  half  (48 
per  cent)  the  county  was  dealt  with  by  act  or  agreement  during 
those  years.  Enclosure  was  proceeding  between  1690  and  1740, 
but  it  was  mostly  confined  to  the  lowlands  of  Holderness  and  the 
Vale  of  York  and  was  apparently  on  a restricted  scale.1  An 
estimate  of  about  50  per  cent  for  the  unenclosed  area  at  the  end 
of  the  seventeenth  century  may  not,  therefore,  be  an  unrealistic  one. 

By  1690  enclosure  had  made  inroads  into  the  open  fields  in 
all  parts  of  the  county,  but  its  effects  were  most  noticeable  in  the 
landscapes  of  the  Vale  of  York  and  Holderness,  where  more  land 
lay  in  hedged  than  in  open  fields.  On  the  wolds,  despite  con- 
siderable enclosures  made  in  Tudor  times  in  the  interests  of  sheep 
farming,  the  greater  part  of  the  district  retained  its  ancient  open- 
field  husbandry.  Many  of  the  higher  townships  at  least  were 
similar  in  appearance  to  Wetwang  which  was  described,  early  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  as  being  in  the  midst  of  an  open  country- 
side in  which  “Scarce  a Bush  or  Tree  [appeared]  for  several 
Miles”.2  Bushes  and  trees — with  the  exception  of  whins  or  furze — 
remained  a rarity  on  the  high  wolds  until  well  into  the  eighteenth 
century.  Great  tracts  of  wold  land  were  devoted  to  sheep  pasture 
and  rabbit  warren  in  both  open  and  enclosed  townships.  In  the 
first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  it  is  probable  that  at  least  a 
half,  and  perhaps  as  much  as  two-thirds,  of  the  chalk  country  was 
under  grassland.3 

In  the  alluvial  Carrlands  along  the  river  Hull,  in  the  shallow 
valleys  between  the  hummocky  glacial  drift  of  Holderness,  in  the 
Vale  of  Pickering  and  in  the  southern  part  of  the  Vale  of  York  ill- 
drained  bottom-lands  presented  a dismal  picture  during  floods. 
The  low-lying  grounds  were  not  all  subject  to  permanent  inundation, 
however.  They  could  generally  be  used  for  at  least  two  or  three 
months  in  the  summer  for  grazing  purposes,  and  they  provided 
coarse  hay,  wildfowl,  fish  and  peats.  It  was  said  of  the  Carrlands 
of  Brandesburton  in  1773  that  they  were  “good  pasture  for  cattle 
in  summer  but  generally  overflowed  and  of  no  use  in  the  winter”.4 
This  was  true  of  many  of  the  Hull  valley  Carrlands. 

1 Enclosures  are  known  to  have  taken  place  in  the  following  townships 
during  the  period:  Kilpin  ( circa  1706),  Fangfoss  (1722-23),  Kennythorpe 
(“lately  divided”,  1725),  the  South  Field  of  Bishop  Wilton  (1726),  Yapham 
and  Meltonby  (1731),  Gransmoor  (1702),  Wyton  (“lately  enclosed”,  1710), 
Little  Hatfield  (1718),  Catwick  (1731),  Danthorpe  (1734-35),  Bewholme  and 
Nunkeeling  (1740),  Thorpe  Bassett  (1718),  Scagglethorpe  (1725-26),  Buckton 
(recent  enclosures,  1729-30).  There  were  small  exchanges  and  enclosures  in 
Burton  Agnes  and  Thornholme  in  1720-23.  The  only  large  wold  enclosure 
was  that  of  Driffield  (1740-41. 

2 ‘An  Old  Acct.  of  Ld.  Bathurst  Estate  at  Wetwang’,  no  date, 
East  Riding  Record  Office. 

3 H.  E.  Strickland,  General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  the  East  Riding 
of  Yorkshire,  1812,  p.  106;  calculations  made  from  data  for  unenclosed 
townships  given  in  the  Crop  Returns  for  1801  (P.R.O.,  H.O.  67  (26).). 

4 ‘Minutes  on  view  of  Brandsburton  Estate  1773’,  City  of  London 
Record  Office,  box  3.9.  Much  additional  information  on  the  Brandesburton 
Carrlands  during  the  eighteenth  century  will  be  found  in  the  Brandesburton 
surveys  in  this  office. 


The  individuality  of  these  lands  finds  expression  in  the 
inventories  of  local  farmers’  goods  and  chattels.  In  the  Hull 
valley,  for  example,  many  of  the  men  who  lived  in  the  villages 
adjacent  to  the  Carrlands  had  boats,  nets  and  fowling  guns  at  the 
time  of  their  death.  William  Walls,  a grassman,  or  cottager,  of 
Hull  Bridge,  possessed  two  ‘Carr  Boats’  in  November  1689.1  John 
Woodmansey,  who  farmed  at  Tickton,  left  two  boats  and  a gun 
in  1737.2  These  men  evidently  made  some  use  of  the  marshy 
grounds  in  their  neighbourhood. 

Where  open  arable  fields  survived  they  conformed  to  the 
familiar  pattern  of  two,  three,  four,  or  more  fields  within  which 
were  the  scattered  lands  of  the  men  and  women  who  farmed  them 
from  a neighbouring  settlement.  Though  piecemeal  enclosure 
had  destroyed  the  old  plan  of  some  open-field  townships,  parti- 
cularly in  the  Vale  of  York,  many  others  retained  their  fields 
virtually  intact.  (Fig.  1). 

Two  open  arable  fields  were  most  common  in  Holderness: 
there  were  few  three-  or  four-field  villages.  In  the  other  parts  of 
the  Riding  there  was  more  variety,  with  a higher  proportion  of 
three-,  four-  and  six-field  villages.3  A crop  and  fallow  rotation 
in  two  fields,  and  a rotation  of  two  crops  to  a fallow  in  three  fields 
was  common  but  by  no  means  universal.  On  the  wolds  it  was 
not  uncommon  for  land  to  lie  fallow  for  many  years  between 
crops.4  The  witness  in  a tithe  suit  of  1591,  who  described  how  land 
in  Risby  had  “laid  lea  for  allmoste  twentie  yeres  laste  paste  for 
the  barannes  thereof”,  might  well  have  been  describing  a mid- 
eighteenth century  practice.5 

Information  of  a general  kind  on  the  crops  grown  in  the 
open  fields  and  enclosures  can  be  gleaned  from  manorial  bylaws 
and  surveys,  but  only  the  inventories  make  possible  a detailed 
discussion.  Since  these  have  not  hitherto  been  used  for  this 
purpose  in  the  East  Riding,  a brief  account  of  their  nature  and 
limitations  is  relevant. 

The  inventories  made  for  purposes  of  probate  are  attached 
to  the  original  wills  in  the  Probate  Registry,  York.6  Each  in- 
ventory— at  least  for  the  period  under  discussion — details  the 

1 Probate  Registry,  York. 

2 Ibid.,  inventory  dated  March,  1737.  Similar  details  occur  in  the 
inventories  of  Daniel  Kime,  Leven,  February  1688,  William  Fisher,  Tickton, 
December  1688,  Thomas  Hakeney,  Weel,  December  1689,  William  Peck, 
Benningholme  Grange,  July  1740. 

3 This  statement  is  based  upon  a study  of  numerous  enclosure  awards 
and  plans  of  the  eighteenth  century  supplemented  by  a number  of  rentals 
and  surveys  of  seventeenth-century  date. 

4 R.  Lennard,  English  Agriculture  under  Charles  II,  Econ.  Hist.  Rev., 
IV,  1932;  Isaac  Leatham,  General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  the  East  Riding 
of  Yorkshire,  1794,  p.  42.  A fuller  discussion  of  rotations  at  this  period  will 
be  found  in  A.  Harris,  The  Open  Fields  of  East  Yorkshire,  East  Yorkshire 
Local  History  Society,  1959. 

5 RVII  G 2595,  Borthwick  Institute  of  Historical  Research,  York. 

6 I am  indebted  to  the  Registrar,  Probate  Registry,  York,  for  per- 
mission to  examine  the  inventories. 



estate  of  the  deceased,  more  often  than  not  with  an  accompanying 
note  of  the  value  of  each  item.  It  is  possible  to  sample  these 
inventories,  grouping  the  resulting  data  together  for  different 
parts  of  the  county  so  as  to  obtain  a picture  of  regional  farming 
at  a particular  period.1  It  will  be  obvious  that  the  value  of  the 
result  is  affected  by  the  nature  of  the  sample.  If  the  sample  for, 
say,  the  period  1690-1700  contains  a high  proportion  of  inventories 
drawn  from  among  the  larger  farmers  a misleading  impression  of 
what  was  most  characteristic  of  the  area  may  be  obtained.  In 
the  samples  used  here  the  very  large  and  the  very  small  farms 
are,  if  anything,  under-represented.  For  all  their  limitations,  the 
inventories  are  an  invaluable  source  of  information  about  the  life 
and  times  of  the  East  Riding  farmer.  Confidence  in  them  is 
strengthened  by  the  fact  that  they  provide  data  consistent  with 
that  obtained  from  other  sources. 

The  inventories  are  not  equally  informative  about  the  crops 
grown.  Most  of  them  do  no  more  than  assign  a value  to  the  'Crop 
on  the  ground’  or  the  'Corn  sown’.  Acreages  remain  unknown. 
Less  than  60  out  of  a total  of  almost  500  inventories  examined  for 
the  period  1688-1743  give  the  information  required  for  an  analysis 
of  the  cropping.  Table  1 shows  the  sample  for  Holderness  and 
includes  a recorded  sown  acreage  of  a little  more  than  353  acres. 

1 The  method  of  analysis  follows  the  lines  pioneered  by  Dr.  Hoskins  in 
Leicestershire  and  used  by  Dr.  Thirsk  in  her  Lincolnshire  studies.  Since  com- 
parative studies  will  eventually  become  possible  in  different  areas  some 
uniformity  of  treatment  would  appear  to  be  desirable.  In  the  discussion 
below,  the  term  ‘average’  is  used  throughout  to  denote  the  median. 












c n 


c n 


















i— i 
























>— < 




















0 6 

















G G 







T— H 


CM  tT  CD  X 05  LC 

G l>  X X O 


















, , 













| | 








X CM  G1 




































T— H 


1— 4 












, | 












) | 















.5  o 

1-4  H-> 





1-4  1-H 
X CM  2 





. (•  O 

4 .4  .=1 



t5>  T-H  1-H  T— I 





I ►>*. 

h s? 

,5  aj  aj 












- s 


2 ^ aj 










aj  05 







l>>  O 

G O 




i— i 




!— i 


aj  aj 

UO  lO 



• *H 











go  x 

oo  oo 


▼— H 

G « 
1 — sO 



-<  43 

>>  2 

O O 

05  05  § 

. 05 
05  >“4 


X X ^ 

U 1-1 
Ph  Ph 

a;  aj 


^ rG 

>.  2 
aj  aj 





aj  o 

G vu  (Jh  S_L ,iu  JAJ  03 



05  O ^ CM 
X G 2,  G 
I>  I>  [> 

T-H  1-^  ^ 1-H 

J-H  1-H  ►>“) 

ai  5 ai  aj 



2 is 
# o 05 
15  c ^ 


-2  'P 

^ m G 
6*  £ 

1 — W 








a>  ^ 

C/5  S 

° H 
43  4^ 




• rH 








05  -G 







% >1 

Jj  G 

• rH  1-H 

o o 


05  73 
G 33 


Q ^ 






G G 

05  05 

43  43  _ 
Ph  CL  p 
a)  05  0h 




43  _, 
-+->  33 

>>  H 


43  . 

CL  w P 











£ 05 









• rH 











































• rH 









05  05 

S4  *h 

■g  s 

G £ 

H->  H-> 
G Q 

43  ^ 

33  C 

G bjO 
G *G 
-G  $ 

tuo  JG 

• r-H  G 


O G 


05  05 

43  43 

^ C/5 

G 2 

h— H 4-h 













O 43 
05  U 






1 Where  land  is  specified  in  the  inventory  as  wheat  or  bean  land,  etc., 
but  is  said  to  be  awaiting  seed,  it  has  been  included  in  the  appropriate 
column.  Otherwise  fallows  have  been  excluded. 


Wheat  was  the  most  important  grain  crop  in  Holderness. 
Together  with  the  very  small  acreage  of  rye  (the  other  winter 
grain)  it  occupied  rather  more  than  half  the  sown  acreage  on  the 
sample  farms.  Equally  significant,  it  was  grown  by  almost  all  the 
farmers.  By  the  late  seventeenth  century  rye  appears  to  have  been 
of  negligible  importance  in  Holderness,  even  as  a mixed  crop  with 
wheat.  Oats  and  barley  together  took  up  less  than  a fifth  of  the 
sown  area  of  the  farms.  The  importance  of  beans  (probably  with 
some  peas)  is  clear:  they  occupied  nearly  a third  of  the  ground 
sown  and  were  grown  by  the  majority  of  the  farmers.  The  table 
reflects  the  character  of  so  many  of  the  soils  of  this  district. 
Holderness  clay  was  essentially  wheat  and  bean  land. 

A similar  sample  taken  from  the  inventories  of  fourteen 
wold  farmers  who  died  between  1688  and  1738  covered  a sown 
area  of  493  acres.  On  the  wold  farms  in  the  sample  barley  rivalled 
wheat  as  the  chief  grain  crop.  Several  farmers  grew  some  rye,  but 
the  acreage  is  rarely  specified,  the  rye  and  the  wheat  being  listed 
together  in  the  inventory.  Wheat,  rye  and  barley  occupied  to- 
gether almost  60  per  cent  of  the  recorded  sown  area.  Furthermore 
they  were  grown  by  almost  all  farmers.  Even  where  no  acreage 
is  given  there  are  usually  other  indications,  in  the  form  of  stocks 
in  the  barn  or  land  ready  for  sowing,  that  these  crops  were 
generally  grown.  William  Gibson  of  Anlaby,  for  example,  had 
wheat  and  rye  worth  more  than  £18  stored  in  his  barns  in  the 
autumn  of  1693,  though  none  is  mentioned  in  his  fields.1  In 
Skidby  Thomas  Thompson,  whose  inventory  records  the  acreages 
of  wheat,  rye,  beans  and  peas  on  the  farm,  had  a piece  of  land 
made  ready  for  sowing  barley  in  the  spring  of  1691. 2 It  is  not 
possible  to  distinguish  satisfactorily  between  the  individual 
acreages  of  oats,  peas  and  beans  on  the  wold  farms,  but  all  except 
two  farmers  grew  peas  and  beans.  The  inventories  of  the  two 
exceptions  were  made  during  midwinter  and  it  is  probable  that 
these  men  actually  intended  to  grow  some.3  The  contrasts  with 
Holderness  are  considerable.  Barley  was  a more  important  crop 
on  the  lighter  chalklands.  On  the  wolds  the  spring-sown  crops 
(barley,  beans,  peas  and  oats)  occupied  about  70  per  cent  of  the 
sown  area,  but  in  Holderness  winter-  and  spring-sown  crops 
occupied  the  land  in  almost  equal  proportions. 

The  wold  sample  prompts  a note  of  caution.  Most  of  the 
farmers  represented  in  it  lived  on  the  low  wolds,  in  places  like 
Hessle,  Risby,  Skidby  and  Anlaby.  There  is  reason  to  believe 
that  if  more  farmers  from  the  high  wolds  had  appeared  in  the  list 
the  picture  would  have  been  different.  In  Wetwang,  for  instance, 
barley  and  oats  were  the  principal  grain  crops  early  in  the 
eighteenth  century.4  Very  little  wheat  was  grown,  " the  Land 

1 Inventory  dated  Sept.  1693. 

2 Inventory  dated  March  1691. 

3 One  had  in  fact  some  land  called  ‘pea  ground’. 

4 ‘Old  Account’  of  Wetwang. 


not  being  strong  enough  for  that  Grain”.  The  sample  may  thus 
over-emphasise  the  importance  of  wheat  on  the  wolds  as  a whole, 
and  fail  to  give  due  weight  to  the  barley  and  oat  crops.1 

The  inventories  of  twenty-two  farmers  who  lived  in  the 
Vale  of  York  covered  a sown  acreage  of  371  acres.  Here  wheat 
and  rye  together  occupied  almost  40  per  cent  of  the  land  sown. 
As  compared  with  other  parts  of  the  county  a high  proportion  of 
the  farmers  grew  both  wheat  and  rye.  This  is  not  surprising  in 
view  of  the  sandy  nature  of  much  of  the  land  in  the  south-eastern 
part  of  the  district,  which  would  favour  rye.  Oats  occupied  about 
a fifth  and  barley  about  an  eighth  of  the  cropped  land.  Beans 
and  peas  were  nearly  as  important  as  the  oat  crop.  Several  Vale 
farmers  grew  crops  other  than  those  listed  in  table  1.  Five  had 
some  rape  (from  less  than  an  acre  to  nearly  ten  acres),  and  two 
grew  hemp.  An  examination  of  a number  of  inventories  from  this 
district  showed  that  a significant  number  of  farmers  (twenty- 
eight  out  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-one,  23.1  per  cent)  had 
hemp  on  their  farm  at  the  time  of  their  death.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  there  is  no  mention  of  the  crops  of  the  new  husbandry. 
These  were  just  coming  into  the  fields  of  the  Riding  at  the  end  of 
the  period.  The  inventories  confirm  what  other  sources  suggest, 
namely  that  it  was  not  until  well  into  the  second  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  that  turnips  and  seeds  became  common. 

The  farmers  of  the  East  Riding  produced  other  things  besides 
crops.  Their  livestock  and  livestock  produce  were  well  known 
far  beyond  the  county  boundary.2  The  inventories  reveal  something 
of  the  animal  husbandry. 

Most  farmers  kept  some  cattle  in  the  1690’s,  for  the  plough, 
for  milking,  for  meat,  or  for  sale.  Two  hundred  inventories  (100 
each  from  the  wolds  and  Holderness)  dated  between  1690  and 
1700  show  that  all  but  nine  farmers  on  the  chalklands  and  four 
in  Holderness  had  at  least  one  beast.  In  the  Vale  only  two  (out  of 
sixty-four)  had  no  cattle. 

The  largest  cattle  owner  in  the  1690’s  was  John  Townson 
of  Salthaugh,  in  the  parish  of  Keyingham.  This  wealthy  farmer 
(his  personal  estate  was  valued  at  £1680  in  1693)  had  a herd  of 
cattle  in  which  there  were  17  feeding  oxen,  9 draught  steers  and 
10  other  steers,  25  young  beasts,  14  cows  and  a bull,  worth  more 
than  £300  all  told.3  But  this  was  an  exceptionally  large  herd, 
even  in  Holderness  where  the  average  farm  carried  more  beasts 
than  its  counterpart  on  the  wolds  and  in  the  Vale  of  York. 

1 Cf.  the  statement  of  the  reporter  to  the  Royal  Society  in  1665  about 
the  Hunsley  and  Bainton  Beacon  divisions  of  Harthill  Wapentake:  “our 
Crop  [is]  barley,  wch.  is  alwayes  expended  or  Converted  into  mault”.  On 
the  higher  wolds  “They  sow  noe  winter  Corne”  (from  a copy  of  the  original 
in  the  University  library,  Hull). 

2 See,  for  example,  T.  S.  Willan,  The  English  Coasting  Trade,  1600- 
1750,  1938,  pp.  85,  120-21,  for  products  shipped  out  of  the  county. 

3 Inventory  dated  Nov.  1693.  The  average  value  of  the  estate  recorded 
in  100  Holderness  inventories  of  the  1690’s  is  £77.  13.  0.  The  figure  for  the 
Vale  (37  inventories)  is  £83.  6.  8.,  and  for  the  wolds  (72  inventories)  £90. 


Townson  was  stocking  more  than  five  times  the  number  found 
on  the  average  Holderness  farm  of  the  time.  Three  out  of  four 
farmers  in  his  district  left  fewer  than  30  head  when  they  died. 
The  average  Vale  farm  in  the  1690’s  carried  a slightly  smaller 
herd  of  beasts,  with  12  head,  and  the  wold  farm  an  even  smaller 
stock,  with  only  8.  The  inventories  for  the  latter  part  of  the 
period  under  discussion  indicate  that  cattle  farming  became 
increasingly  important  in  the  two  lowland  areas,  but  there  was 
little  change  in  the  numbers  kept  on  the  wolds,  where  water 
supplies  were  a constant  problem.  It  would  be  of  some  interest 
to  trace  the  changes  following  the  widespread  cattle  plague  of  the 
1740’s  and  early  ’50’s,  for  this  was  acute  in  Holderness. 

Farmers  in  all  parts  of  the  Riding  kept  sheep,  but  these 
animals  were  especially  numerous  on  the  wolds,  where  they  grazed 
the  permanent  pastures,  the  fallows  and  the  ley  lands  and  provided 
dung  for  following  crops  in  the  process.  In  the  1690’s  83  out  of 
100  wold  farmers  had  sheep,  against  73  and  69  in  the  Vale  and 
Holderness  respectively.  The  wold  flocks  varied  Considerably  in 
size,  from  half-a-dozen  to  nearly  a thousand,  but  the  average  farm 
carried  27  in  the  decade  1690-1700.  This  was  nearly  three  times  as 
many  as  the  number  carried  by  its  counterpart  in  the  lowlands.1 
The  value  of  sheep  to  the  wold  farmer  may  be  expressed  in  another 
way.  Nearly  400  inventories  assign  a value  to  both  sheep  and 
cattle  on  the  same  farm.  When  the  two  are  differentiated  for  the 
period  1688-1743  it  is  found  that  six  out  of  ten  wold  farmers 
possessed  flocks  of  sheep  of  a value  equal  to,  or  greater  than, 
their  herds  of  cattle,  but  this  was  true  of  less  than  one  in  ten  in 
the  lowlands. 

Horses  and  oxen  were  used  for  draught  purposes.  In  the 
1690's  nine  out  of  ten  farms  in  the  county  had  at  least  one  horse 
on  them.  The  average  farm  carried  four.  The  remaining  livestock 
may  be  mentioned  briefly.  Pigs  were  a common  sight  about  the 
farm.  One  or  two  were  kept  on  most  holdings.  About  the  farms, 
too,  ran  the  poultry.  Half  the  Holderness  inventories  and  two  in 
five  from  the  other  districts  mention  some  poultry. 

The  pre-enclosure  farmer  was  typically  a man  with  several 
interests.  Robert  Marr,  yeoman,  of  Skidby,  the  value  of  whose 
personal  estate  was  near  the  average  for  the  wolds  in  the  1730’s, 
illustrates  the  point.2  Marr  had  90  sheep  and  lambs,  6 horses, 
2 cows,  2 oxen,  8 young  beasts,  and  some  pigs  and  poultry.  About 
the  farm  lay  his  plough  and  harrows,  a waggon,  and  a heap  of 
manure.  Stored  away  in  the  chambers  were  six  quarters  of  wheat, 
and  in  the  summer  of  1738  corn  worth  £36  was  growing  in  the 
open  fields  of  Skidby.  There  were  many  others— poorer  and 
richer — like  Marr. 

1 The  average  lowland  farm  carried  ten. 

2 Inventory  dated  June  1738.  His  personal  estate  was  valued  at 
£167.  10.  0.  The  median  value  of  68  wold  inventories  (1707-42)  works  out 
at  £160.  This  compares  with  £134.  6.  0.  for  Holderness  (100  inventories), 
and  £90  for  the  Vale  of  York  (51  inventories). 



In  this  short  paper  it  has  not  been  possible  to  do  more  than 
indicate  some  of  the  features  of  the  agriculture  of  the  East  Riding 
before  the  era  of  accelerated  change  began.  There  are  numerous 
gaps.  The  houses,  the  social  status  and  the  markets  of  the  farmer 
have  received  scant  attention  and  must  await  treatment  on 
another  occasion.  But  if  it  directs  attention  to  the  wealth  of 
unexplored  material  still  awaiting  investigation  the  article  will 
have  served  its  purpose. 



By  I.  M.  Stead,  B.A. 

For  five  weeks  in  August  and  September,  1957,  the  writer 
supervised  excavations  for  the  Inspectorate  of  Ancient  Monuments, 
Ministry  of  Works,  at  Staxton,  in  Willerby  parish,  in  the  East 
Riding.  The  excavations  adjoined  the  site  of  a Filling  Station  on 
the  south  side  of  the  main  York-Scarborough  road,  about  two 
hundred  yards  to  the  west  of  Spital  Corner  (Grid  ref.  TA.023794). 
Excavations  from  1936-47  in  the  sand  pit  behind  the  Filling 
Station  had  established  the  presence  of  an  Anglian  inhumation 
cemetery  and  it  seemed  likely  that  a proposed  extension  of  the 
present  buildings  would  reveal  more  of  this  cemetery. 

Previous  Excavations  : The  Anglian  Cemetery. 

The  Anglian  cemetery  was  discovered  by  T.  C.  M.  Brewster, 
of  Flixton,  during  quarrying  operations  in  the  sand  pit  to  the 
south  of  the  Filling  Station.1  Thirty-eight  graves,  twenty-one 
with  grave-goods,  were  excavated  by  Brewster  in  1936-7;  the 
finds  and  records  of  this  excavation  were  deposited  in  Scarborough 
Museum  and  later  removed  to  Hull  where  they  appear  to  have 
been  lost  during  the  War.  Finds  salvaged  from  the  site  during 
1937-8  came  into  the  hands  of  the  late  T.  Shepherd,  Curator  of 
Hull  Museum,  who  published  some  material  in  1938. 2 In  1939, 
T.  L.  Gwatkin,  then  Curator  of  Scarborough  Museum,  directed 
further  excavations  the  finds  from  which,  together  with  some 
photographs,  are  now  in  the  Scarborough  Museum.3  Finally, 
Brewster  excavated  eight  more  graves  in  1947  and  another  in 
1952.  The  majority  of  the  Anglian  finds  from  Staxton  are  in  the 
Mortimer  Museum  at  Hull,  some  are  in  the  Scarborough  Museum, 
and  others  in  T.  C.  M.  Brewster’s  collection. 

1 I am  greatly  indebted  to  Mr.  Brewster  for  information  about  previous 
excavations  on  the  site,  for  his  help  in  organising  the  1957  excavations,  and 
for  the  benefit  of  his  advice  and  opinions  during  the  course  of  these  ex- 

2 Shepherd,  T.,  The  Naturalist,  1938,  1-23,  109-114,  165-71,  reprinted 
in  Hull  Museum  Publications,  No.  195.  Shepherd  is  vague  as  to  the  exact 
provenance  of  the  finds.  He  states  that  he  first  heard  of  the  discovery  in 
April,  1937,  when  human  bones  were  found  during  the  construction  of  a 
petrol  pit — which  would  be  in  front,  to  the  north,  of  the  Filling  Station — 
and  implies  that  the  Anglian  finds  came  from  here.  Brewster,  who  ex- 
cavated some  of  the  finds  published  by  Shepherd,  assures  me  that  they 
came  from  the  sand  pit  behind,  to  the  south  of,  the  Filling  Station. 

3 I am  grateful  to  Mr.  T.  L.  Gwatkin  and  to  Mr.  F.  C.  Rimington  for 
information  about  this  excavation. 



STAXTON , E . R.  1957 

LC. : VALE  OF.  ' 



500  FEET 


TEV’.iili./,  * , 








I.M.S.  1957 


Fig.  1. 

Site  plan. 




C.IV.  B-IV 



1957  Excavations.1 

Staxton  lies  on  the  southern  edge  of  the  Vale  of  Pickering 
just  to  the  north  of  the  Wolds,  and  the  subsoil  consists  of  chalk 
and  flint  gravel  overlying  sand  (cf.  p.  143-4).  Over  most  of  the  site 
the  subsoil  was  reached  at  a depth  of  about  1'  4",  but  just  to  the 
south  of  the  main  road,  in  B.VI,  it  fell  away  to  almost  3'.  A 23' 
grid  was  laid  out  with  the  intention  of  excavating  20'  squares, 
and  trenches  20'  by  5'  were  first  excavated  behind  the  Filling 
Station.  No  burials  were  discovered  here,  so  further  trenches 
were  excavated  to  the  east  of  the  buildings;  here,  skeletons  were 
found.  Three  squares  were  stripped  completely,  and  two  more 
partly,  the  excavation  of  B.VI  and  C.IV  being  restricted  owing 
to  the  presence  of  a hedge  and  trackway  respectively. 

Burials  : 

Traces  of  eleven  skeletons  and  two  Beakers  were  found,  but 
no  Anglian  gravegoods.  The  nearest  well-attested  Anglian  burial 
was  at  least  a hundred  feet  away  and  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  all  the  burials  found  during  the  present  excavations  were 
prehistoric.  Some  of  the  burials  had  been  disturbed  by  ploughing, 
and  most  of  the  bones  were  in  a poor  state  of  preservation, 
requiring  treatment  with  cellulose  acetate  before  they  could  be 

Burial  1 lay  immediately  on  the  subsoil,  with  no  trace  of  a 
grave-pit,  and  had  been  badly  disturbed  by  ploughing.  The 
orientation  was  north-south,  with  the  head  to  the  south. 

Burial  2 was  in  a well-defined  hollow  in  the  subsoil;  7'  long 
by  3'  wide,  with  its  base  between  1 ' 6"  and  2'  below  ground  level. 
Parts  of  the  legs  and  one  arm  of  a crouched  inhumation,  orientated 
east-west  with  the  head  to  the  west,  were  found  in  situ.  The 
burial  was  too  deep  for  the  remainder  of  the  bones  to  have  been 
disturbed  by  ploughing  alone,  but  it  seems  possible  that  it  had 
been  originally  discovered  during  ploughing  and  partially  ex- 

Burial  3 consisted  of  a heap  of  long  bones  and  two  groups 
of  skull  fragments  associated  with  an  A-Beaker  (Fig.  7,  no.  1), 
half  of  which  had  been  ploughed  away,  and  a flint  blade  with  no 
secondary  working.  Presumably  this  burial  had  been  disturbed 
by  ploughing  and  the  heap  of  bones  re-buried. 

Burial  4 was  a contracted  inhumation,  orientated  east-west, 
with  the  head  at  the  west  end  facing  south.  It  rested  immediately 
on  the  subsoil  and  there  was  no  sign  of  a grave-pit. 

1 Thanks  are  due  to  Messrs.  Shell-Mex  and  B.P.,  Ltd.,  and  Messrs. 
Appleton  and  Arundale,  Ltd.,  for  permission  to  excavate.  Messrs.  T.  C.  M. 
Brewster,  D.  Britton,  J.  G.  Hirst,  J.  G.  Rutter,  and  G.  F.  Willmot  visited 
the  site  during  the  course  of  the  excavation.  The  Beakers  and  flints  are 
now  in  the  Scarborough  Museum,  and  the  skeletal  remains  have  been 
deposited  in  the  Duckworth  Laboratory  of  Physical  Anthropology,  Cam- 
bridge LTniversity. 










d cd 

-H  o 

0)  o 

> b 
d fi 

(-H  3h 

b£)  o 

cu  i 

(h  ' — 

3 . 

-2  ’d 

o u 

O 3 

be  G 
34  O 

1-1  (H 

— d 





4->  r— l 

O O 
1)  *> 
W d 




a;  co 










r— H 



d _ 


+->  t* 
fi  is 

•rH  d 

fi4  0 

- M 

fi  "G 

3 * 


^ . 
""  34 


. « 
fe  ^ 

rX  ^ 

fi  5 

a>  d 
CQ  w 


o 'm 



CP  m 

d <N 

Plate  I. 

Burial  1 1 . 



Burial  5 (PL  lib.,  cf.  Fig.  2)  was  a contracted  inhumation 
with  the  left  forearm  under  the  vertebrae  and  the  right  fore-arm 
twisted  back  so  that  the  radius  and  ulna  were  immediately  below 
the  humerus.  Most  of  the  bones  of  the  feet  were  missing.  The 
burial  was  orientated  east-west,  with  the  head  at  the  west  end 
facing  south.  A large  flint  block,  18"  by  12"  by  7",  rested  on  the 
chest  of  the  skeleton  and  two  smaller  flint  blocks  also  overlay 
the  burial.  There  was  no  sign  of  a grave-pit,  and  the  skeleton 
rested  on  the  subsoil  at  a depth  of  2'  8". 

Burial  6.  A few  fragments  of  human  bone,  in  an  extremely 
poor  state  of  preservation,  were  found  below  a number  of  small 
flint  stones  packed  closely  together  over  an  area  of  about  3'  6" 
by  3'.  It  seems  likely  that  this  is  all  that  remains  of  another 
crouched  inhumation,  (cf.  p.  140). 

Burial  7 (PI.  Ha)  was  in  a clearly  defined  oval  grave-pit, 
more  than  6'  long,  nearly  3'  wide,  and  3'  4"  deep.  It  was  a flexed 
inhumation,  orientated  east-west,  with  the  head  at  the  west  end 
resting  on  the  right  shoulder. 

Burials  8,  9,  and  9a  consisted  of  the  badly  preserved  remains 
of  infants’  skeletons  in  the  upper  parts  of  the  grave-pits  of  Burials 
11  and  10  respectively.  Burial  8 was  a crouched  inhumation 
orientated  north-east/south-west,  with  the  head  at  the  north-east 
end.  It  was  not  possible  to  determine  the  orientation  of  Burials 
9 and  9a. 

Burial  10  (plan,  Fig.  2;  section,  Fig.  3)  was  in  an  oval 
grave-pit  almost  6'  wide  by  7'  long  and  3'  deep,  which  cut  into 
the  grave-pit  of  Burial  11.  It  was  a contracted  inhumation, 
orientated  east-west,  with  the  head  to  the  east  facing  south. 

Burial  11  (PI.  I.,  and  Fig.  3)  was  in  a grave-pit  almost  9' 
long  by  5'  wide  and  4'  deep.  The  skeleton  was  flexed,  orientated 
east-west  with  the  head  to  the  east  facing  south.  By  the  skull 
was  an  A-Beaker  (Fig.  7,  no.  2)  standing  upright,  but  somewhat 
crushed,  and  nearby  was  the  humerus  of  a pig.  There  was  a flint 
blade  (Fig.  4)  at  the  back  of  the  skeleton,  adjoining  the  ribs, 
together  with  a piece  of  boxstone  and  a patch  of  dark  discoloration. 
It  has  been  suggested  that  the  flint  might  have  been  a strike-a- 
light1 which  is  interesting  in  view  of  the  association  with  the 
boxstone.2  At  either  side  of  the  grave-pit  were  streaks  of  fine 
charcoal3  (cf.  Fig.  3)  which  extended  for  much  of  the  length  of 
the  grave. 

1 This  was  suggested  to  me  by  Mr.  B.  M.  Fagan,  Pembroke  College, 

3 The  boxstone  was  submitted  to  Miss  Helen  A.  H.  Macdonald,  Geo- 
logical Survey  and  Museum,  South  Kensington,  who  reports:  “Fragment 
of  boxstone.  Present  shape  appears  to  be  natural.  Most  probably  gave 
rise  to  rust-coloured  stain  in  the  yellow  sand.”  Also  cf.  p.  144. 

3 A sample  was  examined  by  Mr.  C.  R.  Metcalfe,  Royal  Botanic 
Gardens,  Kew,  and  he  reported:  “This  contains  fragments  of  charcoal. 
They  are  too  small  to  be  easily  identified,  but  are  probably  Oak  ( Quercus 



Pit:  (plan,  Fig.  2;  section,  Fig.  3).  Adjoining  the  grave-pit 
of  Burial  11  was  a small  pit  which  overlapped  it  slightly  in  the 
upper  part,  in  such  a manner  that  it  was  impossible  to  see  the 
stratigraphical  relationship  between  the  two  features.  The  pit 
measured  3'  3"  by  2'  6"  and  was  3'  2"  deep.  An  ox  horn-core 
was  found  in  its  filling,  while  the  remains  of  another,  badly 
damaged  by  ploughing,  were  discovered  in  the  top  of  the  pit. 
It  seems  probable  that  this  pit  is  contemporary  with  the  Beaker 
burials  and  it  may  perhaps  be  compared  with  the  so-called 
‘ritual  pits’  found  in  Neolithic  and  Bronze  Age  contexts  in 
Britain  and  on  the  Continent.1 

Fig.  4.  Flint  strike-a-light  and  boxstone.  (Scale  £). 

Ditches  : 

Three  ditches,  apparently  all  parallel,  were  found  in  the  area 
between  the  Beaker  burials  and  the  Anglian  cemetery  (cf.  Figs.  1 
and  5).  Ditch  C.I.  is  visible  in  the  section  of  the  sand  pit.  All 
three  were  sectioned,  but  the  only  find  was  a small  flint  blade, 
retouched  along  one  edge,  which  came  from  the  primary  silting  of 
Ditch  B.III.  There  is  no  dating  evidence  for  these  ditches,  which 
were  not  necessarily  contemporary,  though  a scatter  of  Medieval 
sherds,  found  in  the  top-soil  above  them  but  not  in  the  ditch 
filling,  may  suggest  that  they  are  pre-Medieval.  They  may  possibly 
have  been  field  boundaries  connected  with  the  nearby  Romano- 
British  settlement,2  though  only  five  Romano-British  sherds  were 
found  during  our  excavations — from  B.V  and  B.VI.  The  dis- 
turbance in  D.I  and  D.II  was  on  the  same  alignment  as  the 
modern  buildings  and  the  Scarborough  road,  and  not  parallel  to 
the  other  ditches.  It  may  be  a ditch,  but  time  did  not  allow  its 
examination.  The  trackway  (Fig.  1;  section,  Fig.  5,  C.I),  which 
runs  parallel  with  the  ditches,  is  probably  quite  modern,  and  is 
certainly  later  than  the  Anglian  burials. 

Packing-Stones  : 

Several  groups  of  chalk  blocks  (Fig.  2)  were  found  at  the 
northern  end  of  the  site.  These  appeared  to  have  been  packed 
round  posts,  although  no  post-holes  were  visible  in  section.  They 
may  possibly  mark  the  line  of  a fence. 

1 Glasbergen,  W.,  Barrow  Excavations  in  the  Eight  Beatitudes,  1954, 
part  II,  pp.  150-1,  for  discussion  and  references. 

3 Brewster,  T.  C.  M.,  Y.A.J.,  xxxix,  1956-8,  pp.  193-223. 

Plate  Ha.  Burial  7.  Plate  lib.  Burial  5. 



Fig.  5.  Ditch  sections:  (1)  top  soil,  (2)  reddish-brown  earth  with  some  flint  and  chalk 
gravel,  (3)  dark  earth,  (4)  dark  brown  sandy  earth,  no  stones;  with  two  much  darker 
patches  in  C.I.,  (5)  yellow-brown  sand  and  gravel  silt,  (6)  blown  sand  from  sand-pit  to  south. 


Other  Beakers  in  the  Vicinity. 

It  seems  probable  that  all  the  skeletons  found  during  the 
present  excavations  were  prehistoric  and  roughly  contemporary 
with  the  two  Beakers.  There  is  no  trace  of  a barrow,  and  although 
one  could  have  been  removed  or  ploughed  away,1  it  seems  more 
likely  that  the  Staxton  burials  belonged  to  a flat  cemetery.  It 
should  be  noted  that  two  other  Beaker  burials  have  been  found 
in  the  immediate  vicinity  (Fig.  6),  neither  associated  with  a 
barrow.2  Furthermore,  Shepherd  notes  that  skeletons  were  found 
when  the  petrol  pit  immediately  to  the  north  of  the  Filling  Station 
was  excavated.3  He  implies,  but  does  not  definitely  state,  that 
the  Anglian  finds  came  from  here,  but  there  is  proof  that  most  of 
the  Anglian  material  came  from  behind  the  Filling  Station  (cf. 
p.  129,  n.).  In  the  light  of  our  excavations  it  now  seems  most 
unlikely  that  the  Anglian  cemetery  would  have  extended  so  far 
north.  If  skeletons  were  found  here,  then  they  probably  belonged 
to  the  Beaker  cemetery. 

Flat  cemeteries  of  Beaker  burials  are  known  elsewhere  in 
eastern  England,  especially  in  the  Oxford  and  Cambridge  regions. 
Mortimer  records  Beakers  from  what  may  have  been  a flat 
cemetery  at  Middleton-on-the-Wolds.4 


A.  Beakers.  (Fig.  6). 

1.  An  A-Beaker.  Outer  surface  reddish-brown;  inner,  grey-brown  with 
bluish  tints  in  parts.  Core  bluish-grey,  changing  to  reddish-brown  on  the 
outside;  some  particles  of  flint  grit.  Decoration  formed  by  the  impression 
of  a single  toothed  instrument:  on  the  neck  five  horizontal  lines  of 
impressions,  then  a band  of  triangles,  the  lower  ones  filled,  then  four 
lines;  on  the  body  three  lines,  a band  of  triangles  as  on  the  neck,  four 
lines,  then  a band  of  pendant  triangles. 

2.  An  A-Beaker.  Outer  surface  a drab  buff,  with  some  reddish-brown  tints; 
inner,  light  grey-brown.  Core  similar  colour  to  No.  1;  pieces  of  chalk  and 
flint  grit,  some  quite  large — up  to  6 mm.  Decoration  formed  by  the 
impression  of  square-toothed  combs:  on  the  neck  a band  of  filled  pendant 

1 It  is  possible  that  the  deliberate  filling  of  Ditch  B.III  (Fig.  5,  section 
B.III,  layer  3)  is  of  earth  obtained  from  levelling  a barrow.  But  cf.  p.  134. 

a The  Beakers  marked  on  Fig.  5 are:  (1)  and  (2)  published  here;  (3) 
B2-Beaker,  Brewster,  T.  C.  M.,  Trans.  Yorks.  Phil.  Soc.,  1951,  13-15;  (4) 
A-Beaker,  see  Appendix,  p.  144.  Sherds  from  another  B-Beaker  are  also 
recorded  from  Newham’s  Pit,  Brewster,  loc.  cit.  A B-Beaker  was  found  a 
quarter  of  a mile  to  the  east  of  the  Staxton  cemetery,  at  Flixton,  and  it 
was  noted  that  there  was  "slight  evidence  of  a barrow",  Dunning,  G.  C., 
Ant.  J.,  xiii,  1933,  53-4. 

3 Sheppard,  T.,  op.  cit.,  1938,  109.  ( H.M.P. , No.  195,  16). 

4 Mortimer,  J.  R.,  Forty  Years  Researches , 1905,  353-4.  Mortimer 

also  records  a flat  inhumation  cemetery  at  Blealands  Nook,  Wetwang,  {op. 
cit.,  1905,  194-200),  with  no  gravegoods  but  with  large  and  deep  grave-pits 
similar  to  Staxton  Burials  7,  10,  and  11.  He  suggests  that  it  was  a Romano- 
British  cemetery,  but  this  seems  unlikely;  there  was  a scatter  of  Romano- 
British  sherds  over  the  whole  of  the  site  but  none  from  the  grave-pits,  which 
suggests  a pre-Roman  date. 



triangles  between  four  horizontal  lines;  on  the  body  three  bands  of 
horizontal  ‘ladder  pattern’,  each  with  the  vertical  impressions  between 
four  horizontal  lines,  and  an  extra  horizontal  line  below  the  lowest  band. 
The  decoration  appears  to  have  been  formed  by  only  two  instruments, 
the  one  with  four  teeth  and  the  other  with  eight;  the  former  has  been 
used  for  the  vertical  lines  on  the  body,  the  filling  of  the  triangles,  and 
the  lower  edges  of  the  triangles;  whereas  the  latter  has  been  used  for  the 
upper  sides  of  the  triangles  and  for  the  continuous  horizontal  lines.  A 
Beaker  with  very  similar  decoration,  also  executed  with  square-toothed 
combs,  was  found  by  Bateman  near  Bakewell,  Derbyshire  (Sheffield 
Mus.,  J. 93-867). 

B.  Romano-British  and  Medieval. 

The  pottery  scatter  in  the  top-soil  included  only  five  sherds 
which  may  be  Romano-British — one  with  calcite  grit  and  four 
with  corky  fabric.  The  other  sherds  were  Medieval  (Brewster’s 
'Staxton  ware’,  13th-14th  century)  and  later. 

The  Human  Remains. 

By  C.  B.  Denston 

(Duckworth  Laboratory  of  Physical  Anthropology,  Faculty  of 
Archaeology  and  Anthropology,  University  of  Cambridge). 

Of  the  better  preserved  skeletons,  two  are  male  and  three 
female.  The  males  are  typical  of  their  sex,  the  bones  being  large 
and  robust,  whereas  in  two  females  the  bones  are  small  and 
feminine,  Eu.1.4.67  being  particularly  delicate.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  third  female  (Eu.  1,4.69)  could  be  sexed  with  less 
certainty,  and  although  bone  size  and  pelvic  form  point  to  the 
individual  being  female,  other  features,  including  those  of  the 
skull,  suggest  masculinity.  It  was  also  found  that  in  two  of  the 
females  (Eu.1.4.68  and  Eu.1.4.69)  the  deltoid  tuberosities  of  the 
humeri  were  more  developed  that  in  the  males.  The  estimated 


statures  of  the  two  males  (Eu.  1.4.65  and  Eu.1.4.66)  are  res- 
pectively one  inch  above  and  identical  with  the  English  Bronze 
Age  male  mean  of  5'  9"  (Trevor,  1956).  No  records  at  present 
exist  for  the  mean  estimated  statures  of  English  Bronze  Age 
females.  Eu.1.4.66,  a male  subject,  has  the  only  complete  skull 
but  is  not  altogether  typical  of  the  English  Bronze  Age  type, 
though  some  of  the  measurements  correspond  with  the  male 
means  for  that  period  (Morant,  1926,  p.  82;  1928,  pp.  368-9). 
They  are  given,  together  with  the  English  Bronze  Age  male  means 
in  Table  I.  Though  all  but  one  of  the  crania  are  crushed,  the 
mandibles  are  in  quite  good  condition,  but  the  teeth  in  the  upper 
and  lower  jaws  of  at  least  three  individuals  show  signs  of  dental 
decay.  Statures  have  been  estimated  from  the  formulae  for  whites 
given  by  Trotter  & Gleser  (1952),  but  no  correction  has  been 
made  for  age,  which  cannot  be  anything  but  approximate. 
Measurements  on  the  crania  and  limb  bones  were  taken  according 
to  the  techniques  of  Trevor  (1950)  and  of  Mukerjee,  Rao  & Trevor 
(1955).  Where  a set  of  remains  is  very  fragmentary  it  has  not 
been  given  a Laboratory  number. 

Burial  1. 

Sex  : Male? 

Age  : Adult. 

The  skull  was  very  much  broken  and  distorted  with  many 
fragments  missing,  but  has  been  repaired  as  far  as  possible.  No 
measurements  could  be  taken  on  it.  Also  present  are  a number 
of  vertebrae,  and  a few  other  post-cranial  fragments.  The  age  of 
the  individual  represented  is  hard  to  estimate  owing  to  the  in- 
complete nature  of  the  remains,  but  the  few  teeth  present  are 
very  much  worn,  suggesting  that  their  possessor  was  at  least 
middle  aged.  Some  of  the  teeth  show  signs  of  caries.  Both  rami 
of  the  mandible  are  missing.  The  mental  protuberance  is  rather 

Burial  2. 

Sex  : Female. 

Age  : Adult. 

The  remains  of  this  individual  consist  mainly  of  fragmentary 
shafts  of  long  bones. 

Burial  3a. 

Sex  : ? 

Age  : Adult. 

This  individual  is  represented  by  only  a few  cranial  fragments. 

Burial  3b. 

Sex  : Female? 

Age  : Adult. 

This  set  consists  of  the  fragmentary  shafts  of  long  bones  and 
a part  of  a left  parietal  bone.  It  is  suggested  by  the  excavator 
that  3a  and  3b  belong  to  the  same  individual,  as  the  remains  had 
been  disturbed  by  ploughing  and  re-buried  in  the  furrow.  However, 
although  this  could  be  so,  there  is  no  direct  evidence  to  support  it. 



Burial  4.  (Laboratory  number,  Eu.l  .4.69). 

Sex  : Female. 

Age  : 30-40. 

Stature  : Approx.  5'  3". 

The  age  of  this  individual  is  hard  to  determine  as  the  bones 
are  so  crushed,  but  30  to  40  would  seem  to  be  a fair  estimate  of 
the  range  in  which  it  could  fall. 

Fig.  7.  Beakers:  (1)  found  with  Burial  3,  (2)  with  Burial  1 1 . (Scale  4)- 

The  cranium  is  very  crushed  but  the  mandible  nearly  com- 
plete. There  is  a persistent  metopic  suture.  All  the  upper  teeth 
have  erupted  and  are  rather  well  worn.  Only  the  roots  of  the 
first  right  molar  and  second  premolar  remain,  and  abscesses  have 
formed  at  their  tips.  All  the  teeth  of  the  lower  jaw  have  erupted 
except  the  two  third  molars,  which  do  not  seem  to  have  developed. 
The  lower  teeth  are  also  well  worn,  and  a large  cavity  in  the 
second  right  molar  was  caused  by  caries. 

Post-cranial  Bones. 

The  shaft  of  the  femora  and  humeri  have  a rather  robust 

appearance  for  a female,  and  the  femora  look  slightly  bowed. 

The  deltoid  and  conoid  tubercles  of  the  clavicles  are  rather 
prominent,  giving  the  bones  a wide  flat  appearance. 

Burial  5.  (Laboratory  number,  Eu.l. 4.66). 

Sex  : Male. 

Age  : 30-40. 

Stature  : Approx.  5'  9". 


The  skull,  which  is  now  the  most  complete  of  the  group, 

was  received  in  fragments  but  has  been  repaired,  and  in  places 

reconstructed  with  Plaster  of  Paris.  All  the  teeth  of  the  upper 



jaw  were  present  at  death.  They  displayed  considerable  wear, 
with  the  premolars  and  molars  particularly  worn  on  the  lingual 
and  labial  edges.  There  were  no  signs  of  decay.  The  teeth  of  the 
lower  jaw  had  all  erupted  and  were  present  at  death.  They 
show  a similar  degree  of  attrition  to  those  in  the  upper  jaw. 
Probably  at  least  one  molar  had  an  abscess  at  its  roots.  The  chin 
is  rather  square,  and  face  narrow. 

Post-cranial  Bones. 

The  long  bones  are  quite  large  and  in  fairly  good  condition. 
On  the  right  femur  there  are  a number  of  shallow  depressions,  and 
although  these  may  be  evidence  of  disease,  it  seems  more  probable 
that  they  result  from  restricted  post-burial  erosion.  The  left  tibia 
and  fibula,  but  not  the  right,  were  found  to  be  bowed.  This  might 
have  been  caused  by  localized  earth  pressure  rather  than  by 
rickets,  which  would  have  produced  deformity  in  both  limbs. 

Burial  6. 

Sex  : ? 

Age  : Probably  adult. 

It  is  hard  to  decide  what  bone  these  fragments  represent, 
although  a large  piece  could  belong  to  either  a femur  or  a humerus. 

Burial  7.  (Laboratory  number,  Eu.  1.4. 67). 

Sex  : Female. 

Age  : 22-25. 

Stature  : Approx.  5'  Of". 


The  cranium  is  crushed,  but  its  facial  portion  and  mandible 
are  in  a good  state  of  preservation.  The  skull  may  have  been 
brachycephalic,  but  accurate  measurements  cannot  be  taken 
owing  to  post-mortem  distortion.  The  teeth,  from  the  canines  to 
the  medial  incisors  of  both  upper  and  lower  jaws,  are  rather 
splayed  out,  especially  those  in  the  lower  jaw,  and  the  upper 
incisors  also  protrude.  The  teeth  of  both  jaws  had  all  erupted 
and  were  all  present  at  death,  being  slightly  worn  and  showing 
no  signs  of  caries. 

Post-cranial  Bones. 

This  is  the  skeleton  of  a small  and  very  delicately  built 
female.  The  tibiae  are  flat  and  narrow.  The  features  known  as 
platymeria  and  platycnemia  are  exhibited  in  the  femora  and 
tibiae  respectively.  It  is  thought  that  platymeria  (excessive 
antero-posterior  flattening  of  the  femur  in  the  upper  region  of  its 
shaft)  and  platycnemia  (a  similar  side  to  side  flattening  in  the 
shaft  of  the  tibia)  are  associated  with  poor  nutrition. 

Burial  8. 

Sex  : Indeterminate  (young  child). 

Age  : Not  over  five  years. 

These  remains  consist  of  the  fragmentary  shafts  of  leg  bones 
and  a few  cranial  fragments. 



Burial  9. 

Sex  : Indeterminate  (young  child). 

Age  : 2-3  years. 

These  remains  consist  of  the  very  crushed  fragments  of  a 
cranium,  as  well  as  a few  teeth  and  some  other  fragments  of  bone. 

Burial  9a. 

Sex  : Indeterminate  (young  child). 

Age  : About  two  years. 

These  remains  consist  of  six  small  cranial  fragments  and 
four  fragments  of  ribs. 


I do  not  think  that  the  remains  to  which  the  field  numbers 
9 and  9a  have  been  assigned  belong  to  the  same  person,  as  has 
been  suggested,  since  there  are  identical  pieces  of  frontal  bone 
proving  the  existence  of  two  individuals. 

Fig.  8.  Staxton  Beaker  no.  4,  found  in  1947.  (Scale  £.) 

Burial  10.  (Laboratory  number,  Eu.  1.4. 68). 

Sex  : Female. 

Age  : About  60. 

Stature  : Approx.  5'  04". 


The  cranium  is  very  crushed,  and  the  mandible  slightly 
broken.  The  left  half  of  the  upper  jaw  is  missing,  but  in  the  right 
half  there  is  one  molar  tooth,  two  premolars  and  a canine,  all 
considerably  worn.  All  the  other  teeth  were  lost  ante-mortem 
and  the  cavities  obliterated.  Of  the  lower  jaw,  the  first  left  molar 
was  lost  ante-mortem  and  the  cavity  obliterated,  while  the  second 
and  third  left  molars  are  worn  down  to  the  roots,  and  the  cavity 
where  the  third  right  molar  had  been  shows  evidence  of  an 
abscess.  The  other  teeth  are  moderately  worn. 



Post-cranial  Bones. 

The  deltoid  tuberosities  are  well  developed  on  the  humeri  of 
this  individual.  This  is  more  a characteristic  of  the  male  sex  than 
the  female.  There  are  signs  of  lipping  on  the  lumbar  vertebrae, 
suggestive  of  osteo-arthritis. 

Burial  11.  (Laboratory  number,  Eu.  1.4. 65). 

Sex  : Male. 

Age  : 40-50. 

Stature  : Approx.  5'  10'. 


The  cranium  is  very  crushed,  but  the  mandible  is  well 
preserved.  There  is  a persistent  metopic  suture.  The  teeth  of 
both  jaws  had  all  erupted  and  were  all  present  at  death,  being 
moderately  worn.  There  were  no  signs  of  caries.  The  right  upper 
canine  is  not  aligned  with  the  tooth-row  but  is  displaced  lingually. 
The  roots  of  the  incisors  are  very  short.  In  the  mandible  the 
molars  and  premolars  are  most  worn  on  the  labial  edges. 

Post-cranial  Bones. 

The  long  bones  are  large  but  display  no  anomalies. 


Morant,  G.  M.,  1926.  A First  Study  of  the  Craniology  of  England 
and  Scotland  from  Neolithic  to  Early  Historic  Times,  with 
Special  Reference  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  Skulls  in  London 
Museums.  Biometrika,  18,  56-98. 

Morant,  G.  M.,  1928.  A Preliminary  Classification  of  European 
Races  based  on  Cranial  Measurements.  Biometrika,  20 B, 

Mukherjee,  Ramkrishna,  Rao,  C.  Radhakrishna  & Trevor,  J.  C., 

1955.  The  Ancient  Inhabitants  of  Jebel  Moya  (Sudan).  Occ. 
Pub.  Camb.  Univ.  Mus.  Archaeol.  Ethnol.  No.  3,  XI,  123. 
Cambridge,  University  Press. 

Trevor,  J.  C.,  1950.  Anthropometry.  Chambers’ s Encyclopaedia, 
15  vols.,  I,  458-62.  London,  Newnes. 

Trevor,  J.  C.,  1956.  The  Racial  History  of  Britain.  The  Bronze 
Age.  Munro  Lectures,  University  of  Edinburgh,  February, 

1956.  (unpublished). 

Trotter,  Mildred,  & Gleser,  Goldine,  C.,  1952.  Estimation  of 
Stature  from  Long  Bones  of  American  Whites  and  Negroes. 
Amer.  J.  Phys.  Anthrop.,  N.S.,  10,  463-514. 


Table  I. 

Comparison  of  Cranial  Measurements  of  Eu.1.4.66  and  English  Bronze  Age 

Male  Mean. 

Cranial  Characters  and 
Biometric  Symbols 

of  Eu.1.4.66 

English  Bronze 
Age  Male 

Maximum  length  (L) 



Maximum  biparietal  breadth  ( B ) 



Minimum  frontal  breadth  ( B ') 



Basi-bregmatic  height  ( H ') 



Auricular  height  to  apex  (OH) 



Frontal  chord  (S1/) 

Parietal  chord  (S2') 

Occipital  chord  (S3') 







Frontal  arc  (Si) 



Parietal  arc  (S2) 



Occipital  arc  (S3) 



Total  sagital  arc  (S) 



Transverse  arc  through  bregma  (T') 



Maximum  horizontal  perimeter  (U) 



Foraminal  length  (FL) 



Foraminal  breadth  (FB) 



Basi-nasal  length  (LB) 



Basi-alveolar  length  ( GL ) 



Upper  facial  height  ( G'H ) 

74.0  ? 


Bimaxillary  breadth  (GB) 

83.0  ? 


Bizygomatic  breadth  (/) 



Nasal  height  (NH) 

54.5  ? 


Nasal  breadth  (NB) 

21.0  ? 


Orbital  breadth  (Ox) 

44.0  ? 


Orbital  height  (02) 

Palatal  length  (Gg) 

35.5  ? 




Palatal  breadth  (G2) 



Cranial  index  (100  B/L) 



Foraminal  index  (100  FBfFL) 



Upper  facial  index  (100  G'H/GB) 

89.1  ? 


Nasal  index  (100  NB/NH) 

38.5  ? 


Orbital  index  (100  02/Oj) 

Palatal  index  (100  G2/G/) 





Surface  Geology  and  Soil,  with  General  Comments  from  a 

Scientific  Standpoint. 

By  L.  Biek. 

(Ancient  Monuments  Laboratory,  Ministry  of  Works). 

On  the  geological  6 in.  map  the  site  appears  on  Post-glacial 
Sands  and  Gravel  overlying  the  Chalk.  Although  the  excavator 
reported  that  chalk  was  not  exposed  even  at  a depth  of  some 
20  feet  in  a nearby  sandpit,  it  is  clear  from  the  general  evidence, 
and  from  the  pH  of  the  soil  samples  examined  (7.90-8.50)  } that 
conditions  are  predominantly  calcareous.  It  is  likely  that  they 
have  been  so  throughout  archaeological  time.  Without  pollen 
analysis,  which  was  made  impossible  by  the  alkalinity  of  the  soil, 

1 By  courtesy  of  Dr.  G.  W.  Cooke,  Rothamsted  Experimental  Station. 



the  point  can  perhaps  not  be  proved  but  it  seems  probable  that 
these  sands  have  never  supported  a heathland  vegetation. 

Soil  samples  taken  by  the  excavator  were  examined  in  an 
attempt  to  correlate  the  ditches  with  the  burials,  but  without 
success.  However,  it  does  not  seem  likely,  from  the  evidence 
available,  that  barrows  had  ever  been  erected  over  the  burials. 

A sample  of  caked  sand,  from  immediately  below  the  Beaker 
in  Burial  3,  was  found  not  to  differ  significantly  in  organic  content 
from  a control  sample  taken  nearby.  It  may  be  that  the  caking, 
and  also  the  particularly  poor  state  of  the  bones  in  Burial  6, 
resulted  from  differential  drainage  phenomena.  Stone  walls,  for 
instance,  have  been  known1  to  act  as  automatic  drainage  channels 
in  sandy  gravel.  It  is  possible  that  the  flint  stone  'covering’  over 
Burial  6 tended  to  collect  drainage  water,  thus  allowing  relatively 
greater  quantities  of  it  to  come  in  contact  with  the  bones. 

It  seems  that  boxstone  is  not  likely  to  produce  a spark  with 
flint;  this  does  not,  of  course,  rule  out  the  possibility  of  its  purely 
ritual  use  as  a substitute. 


Mr.  T.  G.  Manby,  of  the  Tolson  Memorial  Museum,  Hudders- 
field, has  kindly  provided  me  with  the  following  note  and  drawing 
(fig.  8)  of  the  Beaker  marked  (4)  on  the  distribution  map  (fig.  6): 

"Beaker  found  in  1947  after  a fall  of  the  pit  face.  Associated 
with  a female  inhumation. 

8.5"  high,  6.2"  diameter  at  rim,  3.7"  diameter  at  base. 

Smooth  brown  with  grey  patches,  black  core,  dark  greyish 

interior,  calcite  grit. 

Incised  decoration.  One  sherd  shows  the  spring  of  a handle. 

Brewster  Collection.” 

1 Excavations  at  Stanton  Low,  Bucks.,  by  Margaret  U.  Jones  (report 
in  preparation). 



By  John  A.  Knowles,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 

The  church  of  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey  (which  is  said  to  be  the 
last  church  built  in  the  medieval  gothic  style  in  England)1  was 
erected  between  the  years  1525  and  1537. 2 

Although  a parish  church,  it  was,  like  two  others,  within  the 
cathedral  close,  and  was  dependent  on  the  Dean  and  Chapter. 
There  is  therefore  no  list  of  vicars,  as  they  were  not  instituted. 
Unfortunately  it  was  badly  neglected.  At  a visitation  in  1409  it 
was  reported  "The  carpenters  and  other  workmen  who  know  the 
facts  have  told  the  parishioners  how  badly  dilapidated  the  tower 
is  through  neglect  of  the  Chapter”.3 

A hundred  years  later  no  repairs  had  been  carried  out,  as  a 
visitation  report  of  1510  stated  "the  body  of  the  kirk  is  fawty 
both  in  tymer,  glass  windows  and  most  specially  in  thak  of  lede 
so  that  it  raynes  in  in  many  places”.4  Something  must  be  allowed 
for  the  exaggerated  language  of  all  medieval  tales  of  woe,  for  just 

1 Excluding  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth-century  revivals  of  the 
Gothic  style,  such  as  those  at  Staunton  Harold,  (1653-1655),  Berwick-on- 
Tweed  (1650-1654),  Brampton  Bryan,  Herefordshire  (1656-),  St.  Wilfrid’s 
Chapel  at  Brougham,  Westmorland  (1658),  and  King’s  Norton,  Leics., 
completed  in  1775.  Archaeol.  Journal,  cxii,  p.  177. 

2 The  date  is  important  as  no  fewer  than  three  writers  have  placed 
it  from  five  to  ten  years  too  late.  Bloxam,  Principles  of  Gothic  Ecclesiastical 
Architecture,  eleventh  ed.  1882,  p.  275,  says  that  it  was  “commenced  A.D. 
1535  and  was  finished  A.D.  1545.”  Benson,  Ancient  Painted  Glass  in  the 
Minster  and  Churches  of  York.  Yorks.  Philosoph.  Soc.’s  Report  1915,  p.  169, 
says  the  same.  The  Rev.  Chancellor  Harrison,  The  Painted  Glass  of  York, 
S.P.C.K.,  1927,  p.  143,  says  “between  1530  and  1545”.  The  dates  1525- 
1537  as  given  by  Browne,  Hist,  of  the  Metropolitan  Church  of  St.  Peter  York, 
1847,  vol.  i,  p.  271,  are  well  authenticated.  Drake,  in  his  Eboracum,  p.  340, 
gives  an  inscription  formerly  on  a window  which  recorded  the  laying  of  the 
foundation  stone  of  the  church  in  1525.  The  York  Minster  Fabric  Rolls, 
Surtees  Soc.,  vol.  35,  p.  100  note,  gives  a list  of  payments  in  1526  in  con- 
nection with  the  re-building,  compiled  by  the  clerk  of  works,  Thomas  Marsar 
who  himself  gave  a window  to  the  church  in  1535,  at  which  time  the  work 
would  be  nearing  completion. 

3 York  Minster  Fabric  Rolls,  Surtees  Soc.,  vol.  35,  p.  247,  and  Raine, 
Medieval  York,  p.  38.  Two  other  York  churches  in  a similar  plight  through 
being  tied  to  ecclesiastical  foundations  were  St.  Nicholas  Ch.  in  Micklegate, 
depending  on  Holy  Trinity  Priory,  and  St.  Olave’s  Ch.  in  Marygate,  within 
the  precincts  of  St.  Mary’s  Abbey.  The  latter,  though  the  most  richly- 
endowed  church  in  York,  became  so  ruinous  that  it  had  to  be  reconsecrated. 

4 York  Minster  Fabric  Rolls,  Surtees  Soc.,  vol.  35,  p.  261. 


about  that  time  three  prominent  York  citizens,  all  men  of  sub- 
stance, were  buried  in  the  church.1 

But  there  is  enough  evidence  to  show  that  the  church  was 
in  a ruinous  condition  and  evidently  beyond  repair,  for  some  few 
years  later  it  was  pulled  down  and,  as  previously  stated,  the 
foundations  of  a new  church  laid  in  1525. 

The  glass  in  the  east  window  evidently  came  from  the 
former  church.  Of  the  style  of  its  architecture  there  is  no  record, 
but  some  two  or  three  of  the  panels  of  glass  in  the  tracery  have 
come  from  windows  of  the  flowing  Decorated  style.  An  irregular 
and  lop-sided  kite-shape,  and  two  tracery  pieces  with  one  side  the 
arc  of  a circle,  and  the  other  straight,  were  evidently  part  of  the 
tracery  of  a window  similar  to  one  in  the  east  end  of  the  north 
aisle  of  St.  Saviour’s  Church  of  which  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey 
window  may  have  been  a duplicate.  In  medieval  times  tracery  to 
stock  patterns  could  be  bought  ready  made,  and  mullions  at  so 
much  per  foot,  just  as  sashes,  doors,  and  mouldings  are  supplied 
now-a-days,  to  be  walled  in  by  jobbing  masons  who  had  neither 
the  skill  nor  the  means  of  setting  out  and  carving  the  complicated 
shapes  of  gothic  traceries.2 3 

The  general  appearance  of  the  window  is  very  satisfactory. 
The  glass  is  brilliant  and  shows  very  few  signs  of  decay,  such  as 
is  to  be  seen  in  glass  of  the  same  date  in  the  nave  of  the  Minster. 
This  shows  that  decay  is  not  due  to  age,  but  to  inferiority  in  the 
manufacture  of  the  material.  The  painting  has  been  most  care- 
fully executed,  no  pains  or  expense  has  been  spared,  and  the  work 
has  been  loaded  with  detail,  (a  Fig.  1).  It  is  the  most  highly- 
finished  example  of  XIV  cent,  work  in  York.  Some  few  years 
ago  the  window  was  taken  out  and  the  glass  re-arranged  which 
has  added  greatly  not  only  to  the  general  effect  as  a whole,  but 
to  the  elucidation  of  many  interesting  details. 

1 These  were  John  Stockdale,  Alderman  in  1506,  Sir  John  Petty,  the 
glass  painter  and  Lord  Mayor  of  York,  1508,  and  Maurice  Bront,  an  organ 
builder,  1510.  Hist,  of  York  Churches,  Rev.  Angelo  Raine.  Yorks.  Herald, 
Dec.  7,  1921. 

Sir  John  Petty,  who  lived  in  Stonegate,  died  during  his  year  of  office 
and  "was  nobly  entered  at  the  parish  church  of  St.  Michael  called  the 
Belframe,  with  the  sword  and  mase  borne  by  the  esquyers  afore  the  body 
and  corse  and  sex  aldermen  berying  the  sayd  corse  to  the  sayd  church". 
(Skaife  MS.  York  Pub.  Lib.). 

3 Ely  Sacrist  Roll.  31  Ed.  IIE  "In  56  pedes  de  ogiffs  (ogee  mouldings) 
empt.  16s.  4,  pret.  ped.  4£d. 

Eton  Coll.  1442  416  feet  of  legement  table,  clene,  appareilled  in  the  form 
that  is  called  casshe  pece  according  to  a mould  to  them  (the  masons) 
delivered  (by  the  clerk  of  the  works). 

Corpus  Christi  Coll.,  Oxford,  1517.  "Md  covenawntyd  and  agreed  with 
Wyllm  Est  for  Vile  and  IIIXX  footes  of  cresse  table  and  severall  table  att 
iiij  the  foote  hyt  to  be  made  off  the  stone  off  taynton"  etc. 

The  writer  has  measured  between  the  mullions  of  several  XIV  cent, 
windows  in  York  churches.  They  all  measure  22£ins.  probably  the  equivalent 
of  the  modern  two  feet.  Some  years  ago  a rule  was  found  which  had  been 
dropped  behind  some  stalls  by  a workman  during  building  operations.  It 
measured  something  short  of  the  modern  standard  two  foot  rule. 


Plate  I 

East  Window.  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey  Church 


But  previously  the  glass  had  suffered  many  vicissitudes.  It 
is  not  a complete  design,  but  has  been  made  up  from  at  least 
three,  and  possibly  more,  windows  from  the  old  church.  Canopies 
and  subjects  which  appear  on  casual  inspection  to  be  parts  of  the 
same  design,  on  closer  examination  turn  out  to  have  been  brought 
together  from  different  windows. 

Although  the  new  church  was  completed  in  1537  the  glass 
in  the  east  window  was  probably  not  fixed  in  its  present  position 
until  fifty  years  later.  This  was  due  to  a long-continued  dispute 
between  the  parishioners  and  the  Dean  and  Chapter.  The  Rev. 
Angelo  Raine  has  stated  that  “In  1571  the  parishioners  were 
ordered  to  elect  churchwardens,  but  they  refused,  'they  be  utterlie 

{a)  (b) 

Fig.  1.  Patterns  on  Fillets  and  borders  of  Monkeys  and  Bells. 

mescontented  that  anye  elections  be  made'.  They  would  not  do 
anything  until  a definite  agreement  was  reached  as  to  who  was 
responsible  for  the  upkeep  of  the  fabric.  On  Oct.  13th  1587  the 
agreement  was  signed.  The  Dean  and  Chapter  were  to  repair 
present  defects  in  the  nave  and  chancel  . . . and  for  the  future 
they  were  to  keep  the  chancel  in  repair.”1  It  was  then,  no  doubt, 
that  the  windows  from  the  old  church  were  brought  out  of  store, 
and  cut  up  to  fit  the  traceries  and  lights  of  the  east  window,  for 
in  that  same  year  the  following  item  occurs  in  the  Fabric  Rolls 
of  the  Minster: — 

“For  makinge  and  mendinge  the  glasse  wyndowes  in 
Belfraye  church  £4.  13.  4.  in  part  of  payment  of  £13.  6.  8.”2 
'Makinge’  probably  referred  to  cutting  up  and  fitting  the 
glass  into  its  new  position  in  the  east  window,  and  'mendinge’ 
can  only  have  applied  to  the  windows  in  the  clerestory  which 
would  be  (as  they  are  to-day)  of  plain  quarry  work.  Practically 
all  the  windows  in  the  aisles  had  been  filled  with  stained  glass 
made  after  the  new  church  was  built.  The  Dodsworth  MS. 
quoted  by  Drake3  records  the  donors  of  three  windows  in  the 
North  aisle,  the  Ceel  (1537)  Ashton  (15 — ) and  Sosa  windows,  and 

1 Churches  and  Chapels  of  Medieval  York  . . . Lecture  by  the  Rev. 

Angelo  Raine.  Yorks.  Herald,  Dec.  7,  1921. 

2 York  Minster  Fabric  Rolls,  Surtees  Soc.,  vol.  35,  p.  119. 

3 Eboracum,  pp.  339-340. 


the  Elwald  (15 — );  Listar  (1535),  Marsar  (1535),  Cotman  (1514), 
and  Beckwith  (1530)  windows  in  the  south  aisle.  The  South-east 
window  was  in  memory  of  William  Tonson,  no  doubt  William 
Thompson,  the  glass-painter  who  died  in  1 539-40. 1 

The  cost  of  fitting  the  old  glass  into  the  East  window, 
(£13.  6.  8d.)  was  considerable,  which  points  to  something  more 
than  repairs.  It  was  equal  to  at  least  £150  present  value.  In 
medieval  accounts,  when  a sum  of  money  is  in  round  figures,  it 
generally  represents  payment  for  work  carried  out  by  contract  at 
an  agreed  price,  as  opposed  to  what  workmen  call  a ‘stuff  and 
time  job’,  where  the  bill  generally  adds  up  to  odd  shillings  and 
pence.  For  though  at  first  sight  £13.  6.  8d.  does  not  look  what  is 
commonly  called  nowadays  ‘even  money’,  it  is  actually  a round 
sum,  6s.  8d.  being  half  a mark,  or  one-third  of  £1,  a figure  which 
still  exists  in  lawyer’s  charges,  and  in  fines  at  our  older  universities. 

The  windows  were  evidently  again  repaired  or  re-leaded  in 
1746  by  one  who  has  left  his  name  (Jeffrey  Linton)  and  the  date 
surmounted  by  a star,  painted  and  stained  on  a circle  in  the  top 
right  hand  of  the  tracery.  He  evidently  carried  out  similar  work 
on  the  windows  in  the  south  aisle  at  the  same  time,  for  the  date 
1746  is  to  be  seen  at  the  bottom  of  the  third  light  of  the  third 
window  from  east.2  Linton  was  admitted  a Freeman  in  1733  as 
a Plumber  and  Glazier.  In  1741  he  was  living  in  Petergate,  and 
was  buried  in  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey  churchyard  April  22,  1767.3 

There  is  no  record  of  a glass-painter  in  York  from  1709,  the 
date  of  the  death  of  Henry  Gyles,  until  1752  when  William  Peckitt 
started  in  business.  But  the  above  circle,  painted  and  stained, 
shows  that  all  knowledge  of  the  craft  had  not  entirely  died  out. 

A still  later  restoration  appears  to  have  been  carried  out 
sometime  about  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  most 
probably  by  Barnetts  of  York.  In  1846  they  restored  the  St. 
Stephen  and  St.  Laurence  window  in  the  nave  of  the  Minster, 
after  having,  in  the  previous  year,  made  a ‘restoration’  of  the 
east  window  of  the  Chapter  House,  by  making  an  entirely  new 
copy  of  the  original  glass.  In  1855  they  executed  a window  in 
the  north  aisle  of  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey.  They,  or  some  other, 
have  left  traces  in  the  east  window,  which  indicate  that  some 
restoration  was  carried  out  about  that  time.  Much  of  the  blue 
glass  is  too  pretty  for  XIV  cent.  York  work.4  The  writer  may  be 
wrong,  but  the  crockets  to  the  canopy  of  the  Nativity  subject 
(illustrated  at  Fig.  2c)  which  consist  of  natural  leaf-forms  carried 
on  slender  stems,  do  not  look  like  medieval  work.  The  lettering 
of  the  angelic  greeting  in  the  Annunciation  subject  is  in  Gothic 

1 Glass  Painters  of  York.  VIII . The  Thompson  Family.  J.  A.  Knowles. 
Notes  and  Queries,  12s.  IX,  1921;  p.  163. 

2 The  date  is  reversed  as  the  glass  is  back  to  front. 

3 St.  Michael-le-Belfrey  Church  Registers. 

4 The  authentic  blue  glass  of  XIV  cent,  date,  which  is  of  an  mdigo 
rather  than  an  ultramarine  tint,  is  to  be  seen  in  the  background  of  the 
figure  of  St.  Paul  in  the  left-hand  light. 


characters  instead  of  Lombardic,  and  pinnacles,  which  in  XIV 
cent,  work  would  be  cut  out  of  pot-metal  yellow,  are  of  white 
glass  stained  yellow  all  over. 

All  the  above  repairers  and  menders  have,  in  their  various 
ways  ‘improved’  on  former  arrangements  of  the  glass  by  bringing 
together  pieces  from  various  sources  to  make  up  a design.  As  an 
example  of  this,  we  may  take  the  two  quatrefoils,  one  on  either 
side  of  the  finial  at  the  bottom  of  the  canopy  in  No.  2 light  (Figs. 
3a  and  4c).  In  the  black-and-white  photograph  they  appear  to 
be  a perfect  match,  but  that  they  are  not  a pair,  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  in  one  the  ornament  is  stained  yellow,  and  in  the  other, 
the  background.  Again,  take  the  two  decorated  canopies  in  No.  2 
and  No.  4 lights  (vide  Plate  1)  which  appear  to  be  alike,  and  so 

Fig.  2.  Different  patterns  of  crockets. 

they  are  as  far  as  general  design  goes.  But  that  they  are  strangers 
to  one  another,  and  have  either  belonged  to  different  windows  or 
have  been  executed  at  different  times,  is  shown  by  the  above 
mentioned  quatrefoils,  which  in  one  case  is  filled  with  floral 
ornament  (Fig.  4c)  and  the  other  with  grotesques  of  Bellerophon 
and  Chimaera.  (Fig.  3a).  The  close  similarity  in  the  general 
appearance  of  the  canopies  is  not  difficult  to  explain.  They 
would  both  have  been  painted  from  the  same  cartoon,  which  had 
been  rolled  up  and  stored  away,  until  wanted  for  another  window.1 

This  was  a common  practice  in  York,  where  there  are 
examples  of  the  same  cartoon  having  been  used  three  times. 
E.g.  a panel  representing  the  Decollation  of  St.  John  Baptist  appears 

1 Thomas  Shirley,  the  glass-painter,  in  his  will  made  in  1456  left  his 
son  Robert  “all  my  full  size  cartoons  ( pvotractoria ) appliances  and  necessaries” 

Reg.  Test.  Ebor.  ii.  380  d. 

William  Inglish,  who  died  in  1480,  bequeathed  “all  the  appliances  and 
designs  belonging  to  my  work”  to  his  son  Thomas. 

Reg.  Test.  Ebor.  V.  179. 

Robert  Preston,  who  died  in  1503,  left  to  the  above-mentioned  Thomas 
Inglish,  “all  my  scrowles  (i.e.  drawings  rolled  up),  w*  one  workboard.” 

Reg.  Test.  Ebor.  VI.  7la  printed  in  Test.  Ebor.,  Surtees 
Soc.,  vol.  iv,  216. 



in  the  Nave  of  the  Minster/  in  St.  John's,  Ouse  Bridge  (now 
removed)2  and  in  the  North  aisle  of  St.  Denys  Church.3 

The  slight  divergences  in  detail  in  the  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey 
glass,  which  are  indistinguishable  from  the  floor,  but  which  show 
that  the  glass  came  from  different  windows,  or  was  not  executed 
all  at  the  same  time,  are  accounted  for  from  the  fact  that  in 
stained  glass  work,  the  cartoonist  draws  out  all  the  main  features 
of  the  canopy,  such  as  gables,  pinnacles,  crockets,  and  finials,  but 
leaves  the  ornamentation  of  small  circles,  borders,  and  diapers  on 
backgrounds,  to  the  individual  fancy  and  skill  of  the  glass-painter. 
(Fig.  4). 


Early  Perpendicular 

The  glass  has  been  so  frequently  re-arranged  at  different 
times  that  it  is  hazardous  to  draw  any  very  definite  conclusions 
as  to  its  original  order.  But  one  of  the  original  windows  from 
which  this  one  has  been  made  up,  was  evidently  the  gift  of  Richard 
Tunnoc,  who  presented  the  famous  Bell  window  in  the  North  aisle 
of  the  Nave  of  the  Minster.4  There  appears  to  be  no  documentary 

1 Illustrated  in  the  Times,  Feb.  18,  1949. 

2 Illustrated  in  Westlake.  Hist,  of  Design  in  Painted  Glass,  vol.  II,  p.  59. 

3 For  further  examples  see  York  School  of  Glass  Painting,  J.  A.  Knowles, 
plates  XIV  and  XLV. 

4 The  above  theory  was  advanced  by  the  writer’s  father,  the  late 
J.  W.  Knowles,  in  his  MS.  on  the  Stained  Glass  of  York  Churches  (York  Public 
Library) . 


evidence  to  prove  that  he  was  actually  a bell  founder  by  trade, 
but  there  can  be  little  doubt  about  this,  as  the  window  depicts 
the  casting  and  turning  of  bells,  with  numerous  bells  hung  in  the 
canopies  above.  The  similarities  between  the  Minster  glass  and 
the  present  window,  are  so  striking  as  to  be  practically  conclusive. 
There  are  figures  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  in  each,  and  the  borders 
in  both  consist  of  monkeys  playing  musical  instruments;  one  of 
them  has  what  appears  to  be  a hawk  carried  on  a gloved  hand. 
The  monkeys  alternate  with  bells,  some  of  which  are  inscribed 
BEATI.  (Fig.  lb).  For  the  following  particulars  of  the  donor, 
the  writer  is  chiefly  indebted  to  Browne.1 

Richard  Tunnoc  lived  in  his  own  house  in  Stonegate  which 
was  confirmed  to  him  in  fee  in  1311-12  by  King  Edward  II  and 
granted  to  him  by  the  prebendary  of  Osbaldwick  for  the  annual 
rent  of  twenty  shillings.  He  was  one  of  the  Bailiffs  of  York  in 

Fig.  4.  Varied  ornament  in  circles  and  quatrefoils. 

1320-1,  and  represented  the  city  in  Parliament  in  1327.  He  had 
a wife  Agnes,  a daugher,  and  two  sons.  He  died  in  1330  and  was 
buried  in  the  Minster  before  the  altar  of  St.  Thomas  the  Martyr, 
where  he  had  founded  a chantry  for  the  repose  of  his  soul. 

The  tracery  is  unfortunately  in  a very  fragmentary  condition. 
Three  of  the  four  long  openings  over  the  centre  light  of  the  window 
have  been  cut  down  from  much  larger  panels  to  fit  their  present 
situation.  They  contain  figures  of  canonized  deacons,  one  of  them 
St.  Laurence,  so  that  the  others  may  have  represented  other 
scenes  from  the  life  of  that  saint,  or  possibly  from  that  of  St. 
Stephen  also,  since  these  two  were  rarely  separated  in  medieval 
art.2  With  the  exception  of  the  figures,  there  are  no  other  frag- 
ments which  would  serve  as  a clue  to  what  the  scenes  originally 

1 Representations  and  Arms  in  the  windows  of  York  Minster  1859  (but 
not  published  until  1917),  pp.  103  and  143. 

2 There  are  scenes  from  the  lives  of  St.  Stephen  and  St.  Laurence  in 
the  east  window  of  the  North  aisle  of  the  choir  of  the  Minster.  Vide  J.  A. 
Knowles.  Windows  in  the  Westernmost  portion  of  the  Choir  of  York  Minster. 
Yorks.  Archaeol.  Journal,  Part  148,  1951.  Only  nine  deacons  received  the 
honour  of  canonization,  and  of  these  only  St.  Philip,  St.  Stephen,  and  St. 
Laurence,  are  well  known.  The  other  six,  Papylus,  Totnan,  Sina,  Andrew, 
Aithilahas,  and  Benjamin,  are  rarely,  if  ever,  represented  in  Medieval  art. 
Bourges  Cath.  is  a notable  exception  to  what  has  been  stated  above. 
Although  dedicated  to  St.  Stephen,  there  is  no  reference  to  St.  Laurence 


The  top  left-hand  panel  shows  St.  Laurence,  in  a blue 
dalmatic  with  red  horizontal  stripes,  standing  sideways  facing 
right.  He  holds  a pair  of  scales,  in  the  left  hand  bowl  of  which 
there  is  a demon.  (Fig.  5).  The  other  bowl  and  arm  of  the  scales 
is  missing,  with  the  exception  of  the  handle  and  pointer,  which 
are  now  in  the  adjacent  light. 

This  scene  (which  has  been  much  mis-understood)  repre- 
sents a legend  of  St.  Laurence  which  Mrs.  Jameson  gives  as 
follows: — 

"One  night,  a certain  hermit  sat  meditating  in  his  solitary 
hut,  and  he  heard  a sound  as  a host  of  wild  men  rushing  and 
trampling  by;  and  he  opened  his  window  and  called  out,  and 
demanded  who  it  was  that  thus  disturbed  the  quiet  of  his  solitude; 
and  a voice  answered,  "We  are  demons,  Henry  the  Emperor  is 
about  to  die  in  this  moment,  and  we  go  to  seize  his  soul/’1 
Then  the  hermit  called  out  again,  "I  conjure  thee,  that,  on  thy 

Fig.  5.  Demon  in  scales  held  by  St.  Laurence. 

return,  thou  appear  before  me,  and  tell  me  the  result.”  The 
demon  promised,  and  went  on  his  way;  and  in  the  same  night 
the  same  ghastly  sounds  were  again  heard,  and  one  knocked  at 
the  window,  and  the  hermit  hastened  to  open  it,  and  behold  it 
was  the  same  demon  whom  he  had  spoken  to  before.  "Now,” 
said  the  hermit,  "how  has  it  fared  with  thee?”  "111!  to  desperation!” 
answered  the  fiend  in  a fury.  "We  came  at  the  right  moment; 
the  emperor  had  just  expired,  and  we  hastened  to  prefer  our 
claim!  when  lo!  his  good  angel  came  to  save  him.  We  disputed 
long,  and  at  last  the  Angel  of  Judgement  (St.  Michael)  laid  his 
good  and  evil  deeds  in  the  scales,  and  behold!  our  scale  descended 
and  touched  the  earth; — the  victory  was  ours!  when,  all  at  once, 
yonder  roasted  fellow”  (for  so  he  blasphemously  styled  the  blessed 
St.  Laurence)  "appeared  on  his  side,  and  flung  a great  golden 

1 St.  Henry  the  Emperor  died  in  1024.  He  was  victorious  in  a battle 
against  the  Poles,  after  having  put  his  army  under  the  protection  of  St. 


pot”  (so  the  reprobate  styled  the  holy  cup)  “into  the  other  scale, 
and  ours  flew  up,  and  we  were  forced  to  make  off  in  a hurry,  but 
at  last  I was  avenged  on  the  golden  pot,  for  I broke  off  the  handle, 
and  here  it  is”  and  having  said  these  words  the  whole  company 
of  demons  vanished.  Then  the  hermit  rose  up  in  the  morning, 
hastened  to  the  city,  and  found  the  emperor  dead;  and  the  golden 
cup,  which  he  had  piously  presented  to  the  Church  of  St.  Laurence, 
was  found  with  only  one  handle,  the  other  having  disappeared 
that  same  night.”1 

The  fourth  opening  was  probably  not  much  wider  than  it 
is  at  present  and  has  come  from  the  tracery  of  a window.  It 
contains  a scene  which  appears  to  represent  the  martyrdom  of 
St.  Thomas  Becket.  In  the  foreground  is  a figure  (head  gone) 
in  a flowing  blue  (for  black)  garment,  which  reaches  from  head  to 
foot.  He  kneels  in  the  attitude  of  prayer.  On  the  right  is  an  altar 
with  frontal  and  super-frontal,  the  latter  has  a fringe  stained 
yellow.  On  the  altar  stands  a yellow  chalice,  partly  covered  with 
a veil.  At  the  end  of  the  altar  stands  a tonsured  ecclesiastic  in 
dalmatic  or  tunicle,  the  apparel  of  the  amice  stained  yellow, 
holding  a service  book  in  his  left  hand.  Above  is  a cross  which 
may  be  a processional  or  archiepiscopal  cross  held  by  the  ecclesi- 
astic, but  whether  this  is  so  or  not  is  not  clear.  The  cross  may 
have  had  a corpus,  as  there  are  two  lines  reaching  to  the  extremities 
of  the  cross,  which  may  be  the  arms  of  the  dead  Christ.  Behind 
the  kneeling  figure  are  three  soldiers  in  chain  mail.  The  first 
appears  to  be  striking  the  head  of  the  kneeling  figure  with  his 
sword.  The  second  seems  to  be  holding  his  sword  like  a dagger 
and  stabbing  the  man  at  prayer.  This  awkward  and  unnatural 
way  of  handling  a sword,  was  probably  due  to  the  confined  space 
into  which  the  subject  had  to  be  squeezed.  The  hilt  of  the  sword 
is  terminated  by  a ring.  The  third  man  is  also  shown  in  the  act 
of  dealing  a blow,  his  sword  is  shown  descending  at  an  angle  of 
forty-five  degrees. 

But  though  the  above  seems  fairly  conclusive  and  it  is 
difficult  to  see  what  the  subject  can  have  represented  if  not  the 
murder,  there  are  difficulties  in  accepting  it  unreservedly.  The 
kneeling  figure  is  certainly  that  of  an  ecclesiastic,  for  seculars  did 
not  wear  the  long  black  cassock  of  the  clergy,  nor  the  habit  of 
the  monastic  orders.  But  in  scenes  representing  the  murder,  St. 
Thomas  is  generally  shown  as  wearing  the  full  Eucharistic  vest- 
ments of  an  archbishop,  probably  in  order  to  aid  the  identification 
of  the  subject  and  prevent  mistakes.  But  it  was  not  invariably 
so.  When  there  could  be  no  mistake  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
person  represented,  he  was  dressed  in  the  appropriate  costume 
the  scene  demanded.  Thus  in  the  St.  William  window  (c.1421) 
in  the  Minster,  St.  William  is  shown  returning  to  England  in  a 
ship  and  wearing  pallium  and  mitre,  so  there  could  be  no  con- 
fusion as  to  whom  the  passenger  was  intended  to  represent. 

1 Sacred  and  Legendary  Art,  vol.  ii,  p.  545. 



But  in  the  scene  where  he  is  riding  across  Ouse  Bridge  on  horse- 
back, he  wears  a cassock  and  a fur-lined  amice  drawn  up  over 
the  head.  In  the  Bell  window  in  the  Nave  he  is  shown  in  the 
bridge  scene  with  mitre  and  pallium,  whilst  in  the  same  subject 
in  an  alabaster  carving  in  the  Yorkshire  Philosophical  Society’s 
Museum,  he  wears  a cassock  and  amice. 

But  there  is  some  corroborative  evidence  that  the  subject 
represented  the  martyrdom,  for  at  the  east  end  of  one  of  the 
side  aisles  of  the  original  church,  there  was  an  altar  dedicated  to 
St.  Thomas.  Attached  to  this  altar  was  the  Fraternity  of  St. 
Thomas,  which,  the  Rev.  Angelo  Raine  suggests,  was  probably 
the  parish  guild.  The  guild  services  were  held  there,  and  there 
the  torches  used  at  funerals  of  members  of  the  guild  were  kept.1 

Another  point,  which  lends  some  colour  to  the  above  theory, 
is  that,  as  we  have  already  seen,  Tunnoc,  the  bell  founder,  gave  a 
window  to  the  Minster,  and  probably  one  to  St.  Michael’s  also. 
He  evidently  venerated  St.  Thomas,  as  he  founded  a chantry  for 
the  repose  of  his  soul  at  the  altar  of  the  saint  in  the  Minster, 
before  which  he  desired  to  be  buried.  The  tracery  panels  depict- 
ing the  murder,  may  have  come  from  a window  containing  a large 
figure  of  the  saint. 

Representations  of  the  murder  of  Becket  in  glass  are  rare,2 
and  in  these,  the  head  of  the  saint,  as  at  Christchurch,  Oxford, 
is  generally  broken  out.  This  was  due  to  the  decree  by  Henry 
VIII  about  1538  ‘That  Thomas  a Becket  was  no  saint  and  all 
images  or  pictures  of  him  should  be  destroyed”,  which  probably 
accounts  for  the  mutilated  state  of  the  scene  in  St.  Michael-le- 

The  other  smaller  openings  in  the  tracery  are  filled  mostly 
with  fragments.  There  is  a small  figure  of  Christ  in  Majesty.  He 
wears  a red  robe  and  in  His  left  hand  holds  a globe  of  the  world, 
on  the  upper  half  of  which  is  shown  a church,  and  on  the  lower, 
wavy  lines  to  represent  water.  There  is  also  a very  well-drawn 
half-figure  of  a little  angel  in  white,  who  has  a bowl  or  some 
similar  object  in  the  left  hand,  and  is  holding  something  in  the 
right.  This  may  have  been  from  an  Agony  in  the  Garden,  but 
that  subject  is  comparatively  rare  in  Art  until  a later  date. 

Across  the  top  of  the  main  lights  are  five  canopies  which, 
it  has  been  stated,  “were  originally  in  one  and  the  same  window”, 
(see  Plate  I and  Fig.  3).  This,  however,  is  wide  of  the  mark.  Two 
of  them  are  pure  Decorated  in  style.  As  these  appear  to  have 
been  connected  with  the  subjects  underneath,  some  of  which,  as 

1 Rev.  Angelo  Raine.  Churches  and  Chapels  of  Medieval  York,  Yorks. 

Herald,  Dec.  7,  1921. 

2 For  a catalogue  of  the  seals,  pictures,  and  representations  of  scenes 
from  the  life  of  Becket,  see  Notes  and  Queries , 10  ser.  I,  June  4,  1904,  pp.  450-2. 


we  have  seen,  there  is  reason  to  believe  were  the  gift  of  Richard 
Tunnoc  who  died  in  1330,  we  get  an  approximate  date.1 

The  other  three  are  very  early  Perpendicular,  so  that  they 
must  have  been  executed  some  fifty  years  later.  (Fig.  3).  They 
are  alike  in  design,  and  have  been  painted  from  the  same  cartoons, 
but  not  all  at  the  same  time,  the  centre  one  is  evidently  earlier 
than  the  other  two,  as  two  of  the  pinnacles  are  a return  to 
Decorated,  having  been  cut  out  of  pot-metal  yellow  in  the  manner 
of  the  previous  style.  The  other  two  have  been  cut  entirely  out 
of  white  glass,  and  stained  yellow  where  required.  These  canopies, 
though  they  must  be  classed  as  pure  earlier  perpendicular,  have 
been  drawn  by  someone  who  was  steeped  in  the  Decorated  style. 
The  voice  is  Jacob’s,  but  the  hand  is  Esau’s.  The  shaftings  are 
very  wide  and  the  pinnacles  are  short  and  stumpy,  and  loaded 
with  crockets  and  gargoyles.  (Fig.  3b). 

Below  the  canopies  is  a row  of  figures  and  subjects.  In  the 
first  light  are  two  figures  side-by-side,  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul, 
under  dwarf  canopies.  St.  Peter  is  in  a blue  robe  over  a yellow 
under  robe.  He  carries  the  keys  in  his  right  hand,  and  a church 
in  his  left.  St.  Paul  is  in  a yellow  cloak  over  a green  under  robe. 
He  carries  a book  in  his  right  hand,  and  his  left  rests  on  the 
pommel  of  a sword  with  the  point  on  the  ground.  The  background 
to  this  figure  is  the  authentic  York  XIV  cent,  blue,  which  inclines 
to  an  indigo  or  . slate  colour.  As  has  previously  been  shown,  many 
of  the  rest  of  the  blues  in  this  window  are  of  more  recent  date. 

The  panel  in  the  second  light  represents  the  Annunciation. 
The  Blessed  Virgin  is  shown  standing,  which  is  unusual  at  this 
date  and,  what  is  even  more  uncommon,  she  wears  a yellow  (or 
gold)  cloak,  over  a blue  underskirt  diapered  with  yellow  fleurs-de- 
lys.  The  figure  of  the  angel  is  much  mutilated  and,  as  previously 
stated,  the  angelic  greeting  is  in  Gothic  instead  of  Lombardic 
characters,  so  that  it  is  probably  modern. 

The  three  panels  next  to  be  described,  viz.  the  Nativity, 
Resurrection,  and  Coronation,  should  be  studied  in  conjunction 
with  the  panels  representing  the  same  subjects,  in  the  north-east 
window  of  All  Saints,  North  Street.  The  two  are  strikingly  similar 
though  they  have  not  been  executed  from  the  same  cartoons,  but 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  the  work  of  the  same  man. 
To  advance  such  a theory  is  highly  dangerous,  for  probably  at  no 
period  during  the  middle  ages,  was  there  so  much  stereotyped 
work  turned  out,  in  stained  glass  and  alabaster  carving  as  in  the 

1 It  is  impossible  to  accept  Benson’s  statement  that  “the  glass  in  the 
windows  dates  from  about  1300“  ( Painted  Glass  in  the  Minster  and  Churches 
of  York,  Yorks.  Philosoph.  Society’s  Reports,  1915,  p.  169),  because  the 
yellow  silver  stain  has  been  used  profusely  and  the  earliest  known  example 
of  its  employment  is  in  the  Peter  de  Dene  window  in  the  Nave  of  the 
Minster,  which  has  been  assigned  to  1306  or  7.  Winston  Memoirs,  p.  277. 
The  earliest  example  which  is  actually  dated,  is  a window  inscribed  ‘donn6 
l’an  de  grace  MCCCXIII”,  at  Mesnil  Villeman  (Manche)  Jean  Lafond. 
Bull,  de  la  Societe,  des  Antiquaires  de  France,  1954,  p.  94. 


1 56 

fourteenth  century.1  But  it  is  in  details  that  a man  reveals  his 
hand,  and  the  spirited  head  of  a demon  on  the  shield  of  one  of 
the  soldiers  in  the  Resurrection  scene  in  All  Saints,  is  both  in 
feeling  and  technique  exactly  like  the  lions  rampant  on  the 
soldiers’  shields  in  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey.2 

The  All  Saints  window  was  heavily  restored  by  Wailes  of 
Newcastle  in  1843-4.  It  would  be  unfair  to  criticise  the  result  too 
strongly,  for  at  that  time  the  study  of  ecclesiology  and  iconography 
was  in  its  infancy.  But  enough  of  the  original  glass  remains, 
which  happily  shows  details  of  treatment  which  are  missing  in  the 
St.  Michael-le-Belfrey  version.3 

The  Nativity 

In  stained  glass,  from  the  twelfth  to  the  fifteenth  century, 
the  Nativity  was  not  depicted  with  the  accessories  made  familiar 
to  us  through  Xmas  cribs  and  greeting  cards.  The  event  was  repre- 
sented as  having  taken  place  in  an  apartment  furnished  with  a 
well-appointed  bed,  curtains,  a chair  and  artificial  lighting.  The 
Virgin  reclines  in  bed,  behind  which  the  Holy  Child,  in  swaddling 
clothes,  lies  in  a cradle  supported  on  two  posts.  Sometimes  the 
cradle  is  of  a form  more  like  that  of  an  altar  (Plate  2).  St.  Joseph, 
in  the  usual  dejected  attitude,  is  hunched  up  in  a chair,  his  hands 
resting  on  the  handle  of  a stick,  shaped  similarly  to  that  of  a spade. 
The  ox  and  the  ass  look  on  from  behind  a wall  in  the  background, 
in  allusion  to  the  texts: — 

"the  ox  knoweth  his  owner,  and  the  ass  his  master’s  crib"  (praesepe 
in  the  Vulgate),  Isaiah,  1,  3. 

"He  shall  lie  down  between  the  ox  and  the  ass"  Hahakkuk  III,  4. 
(Vulgate  version). 

A lighted  lamp  is  suspended  above4  and  over  all  is  a star — 
the  Star  of  Bethlehem,  or  more  rarely  (as  at  St.  Michael-le-Belfrey) 
a sun,  in  allusion  to  the  promise  that  for  believers, 

"shall  the  Sun  of  righteousness  arise  with  healing  in  his  wings".  Malachi 
IV,  2. 

Everywhere,  for  two  hundred  years,  the  Nativity  was 
represented  in  the  above  way,  with  hardly  the  slightest  deviation, 
and  enough  of  the  original  glass  remains  at  both  St.  Michael’s 

1 An  alabaster  carver  in  Nottingham  despatched  in  one  consignment 
alone  no  fewer  than  fifty-six  heads  of  John  the  Baptist,  which,  we  may  be 
sure,  would  all  be  practically  alike.  Nottingham  Records,  iii,  18-20. 

2 Other  similar  details  are  the  shape  of  the  lamp  and  the  way  it  is 
suspended  in  the  Nativity,  and  the  gold  mantle  of  the  Virgin  in  both  the 
Epiphany  and  the  Coronation  subjects. 

3 The  Annunciation  panel  is  of  no  help  in  this  direction  as  it  is  entirely 

4 In  the  fifteenth  century  a more  naturalistic  treatment  prevailed.  At 
St.  Peter  Mancroft,  Norwich  (since  it  was  impossible  to  represent  a scene 
taking  place  in  the  dark  in  a medium  such  as  stained  glass),  this  has  been 
suggested  by  showing  angels  removing  part  of  the  thatch  of  the  roof  of  the 
stable,  so  as  to  allow  the  light  of  the  star  to  shine  into  the  dark  interior  of 
the  stable.  Fifteenth  Century  Glass  in  St.  Peter  Mancroft,  Norwich.  Canon 
F.  J . Meyrick,  Plates  IX  and  XI. 

The  Nativity 

Goslar  Cathedral,  Hanover.  Early  NTII  cent. 

Chartres  Cathedral.  Early  XIII  cent 
Plate  II. 


and  All  Saints  to  show  that  the  panels,  in  their  original  state, 
adhered  closely  to  the  traditional  formula.  There  are  so  many 
historic  examples  to  go  by  that  it  would  be  invidious  to  point 
out  how  both  the  above  restorations  differ  from  the  original 

The  subject  of  number  four  light  is  the  Resurrection.  It  is 
depicted  in  the  stereotyped  manner,  common  in  the  XIV  cent. 
Our  Lord  rises  from  the  tomb,  holding  in  His  left  hand  a cross 
with  banner.  On  either  side  is  an  adoring  angel.  Below,  under 
three  low  arches,  are  three  soldiers.  The  two  outer  ones  have 
shields  on  which  are  lions  rampant  in  yellow  stain.  A lion  rampant 
would  be  one  of  the  most  familiar  charges  on  a shield  to  York 
men,  for  they  were  to  be  seen  displayed  almost  everywhere,  on 
the  shields  of  the  famous  northern  families  of  Percy  and  Mowbray. 

The  fifth  light  shows  the  Coronation  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
which  is  in  a very  fragmentary  state.  Our  Lord  is  all  in  gold, 
and  appears  to  be  steadying  a globe  of  the  earth  which  rests  on 
His  left  knee,  by  placing  the  hand  on  the  top  of  it  where  the 
cross  usually  is,  instead  of  supporting  it  with  the  hand  beneath. 
That  this  is  the  original  position  and  that  the  piece  of  glass  has 
not  been  leaded  in  upside  down  by  mistake,  is  shown  by  the 
wavy  lines  representing  the  water,  which  are  at  the  bottom.  The 
background  is  blue  and  most  beautifully  diapered  with  ornament 
carefully  designed  to  fit  the  space. 

Across  the  base  of  the  window  are  five  panels.  The  first 
contains  a figure  of  St.  James  in  a yellow  robe.  He  wears  the  hat 
of  a pilgrim  with  a shell  on  it.  The  same  device  occurs  on  the 
wallet  or  purse  suspended  from  a cord  or  strap  which  he  carries 
in  his  left  hand.  He  holds  in  his  left  hand  a book,  the  attribute 
of  an  apostle,  which  distinguishes  him  from  an  ordinary  pilgrim. 

Male  has  explained  how  St.  James  from  the  thirteenth 
century,  gradually  assumed  the  garb  of  a pilgrim  to  Compostela.2 
The  saint  stands  under  a richly-ornamented  lancet-shaped  arch. 
This  treatment  is  so  strikingly  similar  to  that  of  the  west  window 
of  the  north  aisle  of  the  Nave  of  the  Minster,  that  the  writer's 
father  was  of  the  opinion  that  they  were  both  by  the  same  man.3 

Lights  two,  four,  and  five,  contain  kneeling  figures  of 
donors  on  quarry  backgrounds.  No.  5 light  contains  the  figure  of 
a man  (head  gone)  holding  the  upper  half  of  a model  of  a window 
with  carefully  executed  and  elaborate  flowing  tracery  of  XIV 
cent,  style.  He  is  under  a canopy  with  crocketed  gable.  The 
crockets  are  not  cut  out  of  separate  pieces  of  glass  and  leaded  in, 

1 Besides  those  illustrated,  other  examples  are  to  be  seen  at  St.  Cunibert, 
Cologne,  Heimersheim,  Cologne  Cath,  Gladbach,  St.  Victor,  Xanten,  Limburg, 

2 Emile  Male.  L’art  religieux  du  XIII  me.  siecle  en  France,  1.  294  ff,  ii  . 


3 J.  W.  Knowles,  Stained  Glass  of  York  Churches,  MS.  York  Public 



but  are  painted  on  the  quarry  background.  This  very  unusual 
treatment  is  not  a very  happy  one,  as  to  the  casual  observer  they 
do  not  appear  at  first  sight,  to  be  part  and  parcel  of  the  gable 
beneath.  The  bottom  crocket  on  the  left  hand  side  is  smaller 
than  the  others,  showing  that  the  panel  has  been  partly  made 
up  from  portions  of  others. 

The  other  four  personages  appear  to  represent  two  male  and 
two  female  figures,  so  that  there  is  a strong  temptation  to  suggest 
that  these  five  figures  represent  the  bell-founder  Richard  Tunnoc, 
his  wife  Agnes,  his  two  sons  Nicholas  and  John,  and  his  daughter 
Katerine,1  but  unfortunately  there  is  no  evidence  in  support 
of  this.  The  figures  are  on  quarry  backgrounds,  with  beautifully 
designed  and  delicately  executed  ornament  of  trellised  roses, 
buds  and  leaves.  Fig.  6 will  give  some  indication  of  the  beauty 
of  this  work,  which  is  unfortunately  hardly  visible  from  the  floor. 
The  quarries  have  the  usual  border  about  half-an-inch  wide, 
stained  yellow  on  the  two  top  edges,  but  instead  of  being  left 
plain  (as  they  generally  are)  they  are  richly  ornamented.  At  the 
apex  of  the  quarry  is  a nail  of  the  pattern  frequently  to  be  seen 
in  the  iron-work  on  church  doors.  (Fig.  6).  This  form  of  orna- 

Fig.  6.  Diaper  of  Roses  and  Rosebuds  on  quarries  behind  donors. 

menting  quarries  was  derived  from  the  trellis  used  for  filling 
windows  before  the  introduction  of  glass,  and  from  the  vines  and 
similar  climbing  plants  which  grew  up  the  walls  outside  in  the 
churchyard.  Holinshed,  writing  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
states  'Of  old  time  in  our  country  houses,  instead  of  glass,  they 
used  much  lattice,  and  that  made  either  of  fine  wicker,  or  refts  of 
oak  checquerwisek  In  the  middle  ages,  making  wood  lattice  was 

1 Browne,  Representations  and  Arms  in  the  Windows  of  York  Minster, 

1859,  p.  143. 


a regular  trade.  Henry  Gyles,  great-grandfather  of  Henry  Gyles 
(1645-1709)  the  famous  York  glass  painter,  is  described  in  the 
Freeman’s  Roll  as  a ‘trellessmaker’. 

Across  the  top  of  the  tracery  of  the  window  are  shields  of 
arms,  and  for  a description  of  these,  I am  indebted  to  my  late 
father’s  MS.  in  the  Public  Library,  on  the  glass  of  the  York 

(i)  Vair.  arg.  and  az.  a fesse  gu.  (Marmion) 

(ii)  Gu.  a cross  flory  or.  (Latimer) 

(iii)  Gu.  a chevron  inverted  arg.  a chief  pily  gu.  and  arg.  (unidentified) 

At  the  top  of  the  central  light  are  two  shields: — 

(i)  Quarterly  arg.  and  az.  the  first  charged  with  a fleur-de-lys  or. 


(ii)  Arg.  a maunche  sa.  (Hastings) 

Dean  Purey  Cust1  says  that  the  family  of  Hastings  bore  a 
red  maunche  as  their  arms,  but  they  probably  changed  it  to 
black  after  the  execution  of  Lord  Hastings  in  1483,  described  by 
Shakespeare  in  Richard  III , Act  ii,  Sc.  4. 

1 Heraldry  of  York  Minster,  i,  32. 




By  Major  E.  R.  Collins,  D.S.O. 

In  April,  1956,  Mr.  George  Gill,  the  owner  of  Stump  Cross 
Caverns,  opened  up  a new  passage  leading  from  the  main  cave, 
which  was  originally  discovered  by  lead  miners  in  1860.  In  doing 
so,  Mr.  Gill  disclosed  a stalagmite  floor  from  which  protruded  the 
ends  of  two  bones.  (Plate  I).  He  did  not  disturb  the  bones,  but 
collected  several  others  from  the  mud  under  the  flooring.  These 
he  took  to  Mr.  H.  J.  Stickland,  F.S.A.,  who  cleaned  them  and 
sent  them  to  the  British  Museum  for  identification,  where  they 
were  recognised  as  reindeer. 

With  the  help  of  assistants,  Mr.  Gill  then  continued  to  work 
on  the  site,  with  astonishing  results.  Large  quantities  of  reindeer 
bones  were  recovered  and,  when  cleaned,  were  sent  to  me  for 
preservation  and  repair. 

Most  of  the  bones  were  in  a fragmentary  condition  due  to 
crushing  by  rocks  fallen  from  the  roof,  after  which  they  were 
covered  by  a second  formation  of  stalagmite,  which  sealed  them 
up  once  more. 

After  careful  study  and  assembling — in  which  I was  ably 
assisted  by  my  daughter — it  became  evident  that  the  major  parts 
of  three  animals  and  some  bones  of  a fourth  were  represented;  an 
adult  and  three  younger  beasts  of  different  ages. 

It  has  been  possible  to  reconstruct  the  near  side  of  a complete 
skeleton,  except  for  the  breastbone,  which  is  fragmentary,  and 
also  the  entire  pelvis  of  the  adult  animal.  (Plate  II). 

Unfortunately,  so  far,  only  the  occipital  and  part  of  the 
parietal  bones  of  one  skull  holding  a broken  antler  have  been 

Reindeer  bones  have  been  found  in  the  caves  of  Wharfedale 
and  Ribblesdale  in  the  Pennines  and  in  Kirkdale  Cave  in  the 
North  Riding;  also  in  the  Pleistocene  deposits  in  the  Vale  of  York 
as  well  as  in  the  Holderness  area— but  in  Stump  Cross  the  quantity 
is  unique. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  any  part  of  the  caves  has  ever 
been  inhabited  by  man  or  animals. 

The  bones  were  probably  deposited  during  the  closing  phase 
of  the  last  maximum  glaciation,  some  15 — 20,000  years  ago. 

The  cave  is  of  the  pot-hole  type,  with  water  still  running  in 
the  lower  levels.  The  bone  site  is  some  forty  feet  below  the  present 
ground  level  and  a considerable  distance  from  any  natural  entry 

Plate  I. 

A femur  and  metatarsal  bone  in  situ,  1 ft.  below  the  original  stalagmite  floor. 


pRovnsicm  section  <*tfw  ossiferous  deposits  in  the 





uoim  floor. 

or  raw  limestone 


Somes  near  surface. 




cuwev  »ko. 

STRATIFIED  <5 SEi  O Kl  .. 
frVnUTW  OM0. 
QREV  Cuts'  <-,Auin#  . 





Brown  cuv  m 



showing  m-#rra 



Fig.  1. 


other  than,  possibly,  a “swallow  hole”  of  which  there  is  no  trace 
left,  so  it  would  seem  likely  that  the  small  herd  of  reindeer  was 
grazing  on  the  tundra  at  the  height  of  the  short  summer,  when 
melting  ice  water  and  mud  suddenly  swept  down  on  them  from 
higher  ground,  due  to  the  collapse  of  an  ice  dam.  This  could  have 
washed  them  down  through  a “swallow  hole”  to  the  underground 
stream  which  was  then  flowing  at  that  level  and  so  to  the  fissure 
in  which  they  were  found.  This  fissure  measures,  roughly,  6 feet 
by  3 feet  and  is  situate  where  the  water  coming  through  the  cave 
flowed  down  to  a lower  level. 

That  the  bodies  were  much  swirled  about  while  they  were 
disintegrating  is  obvious  from  the  non-anatomical  relationship  of 
the  bones  when  discovered. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  1923  I discovered  a late 
Creswellian  occupation  site  on  the  shore  of  Gouthwaite  Reservoir 
and,  subsequently,  four  more  in  the  vicinity.  These  would  be, 
roughly,  contemporaneous  with  the  deposition  of  the  reindeer 
bones.  From  here,  Greenhow  Hill  is  just  over  the  watershed  in 
Wharfedale,  five  miles  away. 

Dr.  A.  J.  Sutcliffe  of  the  British  Museum,  paid  a flying  visit 
to  the  cave  in  1956  and  I have  to  thank  him  for  suggesting  that  a 
section  should  be  cut  through  the  deposits  to  the  rock  bottom. 
This  has  been  partially  carried  out  under  the  direction  of  Mr. 
Gill,  who  has  excavated  to  a depth  of  12  feet  6 inches,  but  the 
bottom  has  not  yet  been  reached. 

In  1957  Dr.  Sutcliffe  spent  two  days  at  the  cave  and  drew  a 
transverse  section  of  the  deposits  in  the  fissure  in  detail  (Fig.  1). 

In  conclusion  I wish  to  thank  Mr.  Gill  for  his  work  on  this 
site  and  for  the  facilities  he  has  given  me  for  studying  the  section 
and  the  bones  in  situ.  Thanks  are  also  due  to  the  volunteer  workers 
who  helped  in  clearing  the  fissure  and  retrieving  the  bones. 
Particularly  I would  like  to  thank  Dr.  Elizabeth  Travers,  whose 
careful  handling  brought  many  of  the  bones  to  light  in  good 
condition  and  who  obtained  for  me  the  Vinumal  in  which  they 
are  preserved,  and  also  Dr.  Sutcliffe  for  the  valuable  drawing  of 
the  geological  section  shown  in  Fig.  1. 

Plate  II. 

(«)  Skeleton  of  the  near  side  of  a reindeer,  constructed  from  the  bones 
of  three  of  the  four  reindeer  found. 

(b)  Complete  pelvis  of  the  adult  reindeer.  Scale  in  comparison  with  the 
skeleton  4/r 



The  publication  of  the  article  on  The  Defences  of  Isurium 
Brigantum  (pp.  1-77)  has  been  made  possible  by  grants  from  the 
Council  of  British  Archaeology  and  the  Roman  Antiquities 
Committee  of  the  Yorkshire  Archaeological  Society,  and  that  on 
the  Excavation  of  Beaker  Burials  at  Staxton  (pp.  129-144)  by  one 
from  the  Ministry  of  Works.  The  second  part  of  the  Crayke  article 
— The  Trial  Excavation  (pp.  99-111) — has  been  assisted  by  subven- 
tions from  Mr.  E.  J.  W.  Hildyard  and  Mrs.  J.  Knowles  of  Crayke, 
and  that  by  Major  E.  R.  Collins  on  The  Discovery  of  Reindeer  Bones 
in  Stump  Cross  Caverns  (pp.  160-162)  by  the  Harrogate  Group  of 
the  Yorkshire  Archaeological  Society.  Subventions  have  been 
received  from  the  following  contributors  towards  the  cost  of  their 
respective  articles  : — Mr.  J.  Addy  (pp.  112-118),  Mr.  A.  S.  Harris 
(pp.  119-128),  and  Mr.  J.  A.  Knowles  (pp.  145-159). 

The  thanks  of  the  Society  are  extended  to  all  who  have 
helped  so  generously. 



History  of  Richmond  School,  pp.  230,  by  L.  P.  Wenham  (printed 
Herald  Press,  Arbroath,  and  obtainable  from  the  Secretary, 
Old  Boys’  Association,  Richmond  School,  Richmond,  York- 
shire, 21s.) 

School  histories  are  not  usually  among  the  loftiest  forms  of 
historiography.  Everyone  has  seen  the  kind  of  school  history 
written  by  an  Old  Puddletonian,  and  having  very  little  value  or 
interest  to  anyone  save  his  fellow  O.Ps.  This  sort  of  work 
typically  exaggerates  both  the  antiquity  of  the  foundation  and 
its  educational  status,  supplies  with  ingenious  conjecture  the  data 
for  which  there  is  no  factual  evidence,  and  concludes  with  a dozen 
or  so  pages  listing  eminent  O.Ps.  (whom  no-one  but  a fellow  O.P. 
has  ever  heard  of),  or  perhaps  with  a whole  chapter — overwritten 
and  over-illustrated- — devoted  to  the  author’s  reminiscences  of 
Dear  Old  Bonzo’s  wise  and  witty  speech  when  he  opened  the  new 
Fives  Court  in  1924.  Mr.  Wenham’s  history  is  emphatically  not 
of  this  class. 

It  has,  naturally  and  properly  enough,  a special  interest  for 
Old  Richmondians.  But  it  is  also  a serious  historical  work.  Mr. 
Wenham  brings  to  light  and  lays  before  his  readers  not  only  a 
mass  of  archival  material  but  also  a scholarly  interpretation  of 
it,  of  the  greatest  possible  interest  to  anyone  concerned  with  the 
history  of  Yorkshire  in  general,  or  Richmond  in  particular.  For 
that  matter  any  schoolmaster  interested  in  the  history  of  his 
ancient  craft,  and  in  the  story  of  the  institutions  in  which  that 
craft  is  practised,  will  find  in  the  book  much  to  enlighten  him  and 
to  occupy  his  attention,  even  if  he  has  never  been  in  Yorkshire 
in  his  life,  and  concerning  Richmond  knows  only  (quite  in- 
correctly) that  it  is  in  Surrey. 

Richmond  School  is  among  the  most  ancient  of  Yorkshire 
foundations.  It  is  well  recorded  from  1393,  and  of  extant  York- 
shire grammar  schools,  perhaps  only  eight  or  nine,  ranging  from 
York  St.  Peter’s,  A.D.  705,  to  Barnsley,  A.D.  1370,  can  claim  a 
higher  antiquity.  (It  is  true  that  each  of  these  has  been  subject 
to  refoundation,  but  so  has  Richmond— in  1567.)  Richmond  is 
then  one  of  the  handful  of  mediaeval  school  foundations  in  the 
County,  and  its  detailed  history  is  all  the  more  worth  recording 
because  of  this. 

Its  story  is  full  of  picturesque  historical  detail — one  of  the 
earliest  known  incidents  relating  to  it  tells  how  in  1487  after  the 
uproars  of  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  Durham  needed  an  able  school- 
master— and  tried  (whether  successfully  it  does  not  appear)  to 
lure  away  the  master  from  Richmond.  In  Tudor  times  it  shows 
the  townsfolk  gaily  bamboozling  the  royal  Chantry  Commissioners, 



and  converting  or  preserving  to  educational  and  religious  and 
municipal  uses  the  properties  of  no  less  than  six  of  the  nine 
chantries  in  the  town.  They  retained  their  illicit  gains  for  some 
twenty  years,  and  this  fortunately  for  the  school,  for  when  the 
Crown  caught  up  with  them  in  1567,  they  then  endowed  out  of 
the  chantry  lands  the  ‘Free  Grammar  School  of  the  Burgesses  of 
the  Borough  or  Town  of  Richmond  in  the  County  of  York’.  This, 
which  was  duly  chartered  on  14th  March  1567,  is  the  refounded 
school  which  flourishes  to  this  day.  ( Floruit — Floreatl) 

Many  others  besides  Mr.  Wenham  will  delight  in  the  story 
of  the  past  and  wish  the  School  well  in  the  future.  They  may 
then  (to  quote  the  words  adapted  from  the  School  Prayer) 
remember  with  thanks  “its  founders  and  benefactors,  by  whose 
benefit  this  School  is  brought  up  to  godliness  and  good  learning”. 
Such  (like  the  present  writer)  will  trust  that  for  another  six 
centuries  the  School  may  “answer  the  good  intent  of  its  founders”, 
and  bring  forth  “profitable  members  of  the  Church  and  Common- 

W.  E.  Tate. 

Beverley  Corporation  Minute  Books  (1707-1835),  1958.  Edited  by 

K.  A.  Macmahon.  Published  by  the  Yorkshire  Archaeological 

Society,  Record  Series,  Vol.  CXXII,  xxvi  + 166  pages. 

This  useful  guide  to  the  contents  of  the  Beverley  Corporation 
Minute  Books  is  preceded  by  a scholarly  and  perceptive  intro- 
duction. Beverley  Corporation  was  relatively  simple  in  structure, 
consisting  of  thirteen  Aldermen,  one  of  whom  each  year  was 
elected  Mayor,  together  with  thirteen  Capital  Burgesses  or 
Chambermen  elected  annually  by  the  burgesses  at  large  from  a 
list  of  twenty-six  burgesses  selected  wholly  by  the  Mayor  and 
Aldermen.  There  were  occasional  clashes  between  the  two  groups, 
as  in  1802,  1803  and  1828,  but  a more  detailed  study  would  be 
necessary  to  ‘explain’  them  fully.  The  references  in  the  notes  of 
the  Minutes  are  less  full  than  the  statements  in  the  introduction. 
Mr.  Macmahon  discusses  in  addition  Council  meeting  procedure, 
the  development  of  committees,  the  rights  and  obligations  of 
freemen,  Corporation  patronage,  relations  with  the  Minster  and 
the  parish  church  of  St.  Mary,  the  Grammar  School  charities, 
finance,  pastures,  civic  improvement,  relationships  with  other 
towns,  petitions  to  Parliament  and  the  work  of  the  M.Ps.  Three 
points  are  of  particular  interest.  First,  the  ‘hand-to-mouth’ 
system  of  small  town  finance  produced  more  than  one  crisis,  and 
specially  appointed  Finance  Committees  had  important  recom- 
mendations to  make,  as  in  1816.  There  were  no  Standing  Com- 
mittees in  Beverley,  but  the  Finance  Committees  were  often 
making  what  were  in  effect  ‘general  purposes’  proposals.  Second, 
the  control  of  fields  and  pastures  remained  important  throughout 
this  period,  at  a time  when  the  Corporation  was  bound  to  pay 
attention  to  very  different  kinds  of  economic  development  both 


in  Beverley  and  outside.  Third,  there  were  few  intimations  before 
1835  of  the  imminence  of  reform.  The  impending  dissolution 
of  the  old  Corporation  under  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  is 
scarcely  noticed  in  the  last  of  the  Minute  Books,  and  there  was  no 
civic  protest  when  the  Commissioners  notified  their  intention  of 
holding  an  inquiry  into  ‘the  existing  state’  of  the  Corporation  in 
1833.  Two  other  points  might  have  been  usefully  discussed  at 
rather  greater  length  in  the  introduction — first,  what  Mr.  Mac- 
mahon  calls  ‘the  changing  social  character  of  the  town’  which 
left  its  impact  not  only  on  the  problems  with  which  the  Corpora- 
tion was  concerned  but  on  the  functional  composition  of  the 
Council  itself,  and  second,  the  office  of  Mayor. 

The  main  body  of  this  volume  consists  of  brief  notices  under 
each  year  of  minutes  which  ‘could  be  considered  to  have  some 
significance  and  illustrative  value’.  Sometimes  the  entries,  as  is 
inevitable,  are  tantalisingly  brief,  but  taken  together  they  consti- 
tute a valuable  index  which  will  be  helpful  to  future  scholars. 
The  word  ‘minutes'  is  itself,  of  course,  somewhat  misleading. 
Apart  from  unevenness  of  reporting,  in  no  single  instance  in  any 
of  the  four  volumes  Mr.  Macmahon  summarises  is  there  formal 
authentication  of  the  entries  by  the  signature  of  the  Mayor,  the 
subscription  of  those  attending,  or  a declaration  at  a subsequent 
meeting  that  the  orders  and  decisions  were  read  over  and  con- 
firmed by  those  then  present.  Properly  speaking,  as  Mr.  Macmahon 
remarks,  the  four  volumes  approximate  more  closely  to  Memoranda 
Books  than  Minute  Books.  Given  the  range  of  their  contents, 
they  ‘cannot  be  regarded  as  being  a complete  record  of  affairs  and 
matters  discussed  at  meetings  of  the  Corporation’. 

Asa  Briggs. 

Some  introductory  notes  on  the  Early  Church  in  Asia  Minor, 
pp.  63,  by  E.  C.  Hudson  (printed  Herald  Press,  Arbroath,  and 
obtainable  from  S.P.C.K.,  Stonegate,  York,  5s.) 

This  work,  by  a vice-president  of  the  Society,  consists  of  10 
papers,  each  dealing  with  an  aspect  of  early  church  history  in 
Asia  Minor.  It  covers  an  area  and  a subject  little  known  to  the 
general  reader.  It  presents  the  findings  of  modern  church 
scholarship,  the  results  of  recent  excavations  and  the  latest  inter- 
pretations of  the  epigraphic  evidence  in  a concise  and  scholarly 
fashion.  This,  coupled  with  the  author’s  intimate  knowledge  of 
the  localities  described,  makes  it  a valuable  and  readable  book. 
It  should  prove  especially  useful  to  ordinands. 

L.  P.  W. 



Yorks.  Archaeological  Journal,  Parts  155  & 156. 

“The  Fourteenth  Century  Fire  at  Selby  Abbey”.  Pages 
451-454.  By  an  unforgivably  careless  mis-reading  of  the  regnal 
year  by  which  were  dated  the  letters  of  Privy  Seal  referred  to  in 
the  additional  note  on  page  454,  the  year  is  wrongly  given  as 
1344  instead  of  1342.  The  fire  then  cannot  have  occurred  later 
than  May  1342,  in  which  month  the  first  petition  to  be  excused 
the  granting  of  the  corrody  to  John  de  Queldrik  was  probably  made. 

The  dates  of  the  letters  in  the  third  paragraph  of  the  note 
(page  451)  and  of  all  references  to  the  fire  are  to  be  amended  to 
1342.  The  fourth  paragraph  is  to  be  ignored. 

A closer  examination  of  the  transactions  made  in  the  Chapter 
House  as  entered  in  the  Gaddesby  register  has  proved  inconclusive, 
since  the  terms  “in  capitulo  nostro”  and  “in  domo  nostra  capitu- 
lari”  seem  to  be  synonymous.  But  if  the  register  scribes  intended 
a difference,  the  first  term,  with  one  exception  in  1348,  was  in 
use  between  1342  and  1357,  and  from  1358  “in  domo  nostra 
capitulari”  is  used  invariably. 

It  would  appear  then,  that  the  fire  damage  in  the  Chapter 
House  at  least,  was  not  so  very  extensive. 

G.  S.  Haslop. 

tlbe  )j)orl;sbtre  Hrcba'ological  Society. 

Prices  of  the  Journal  of  the  Society,  which  may  be  had  on  application 
to  the  Librarian,  10,  Park  Place,  Leeds  : — 

Yorkshire  Archaeological  Journal,  bound  in 

cloth,  post  free  . . . . . . <£1  1 0 

,,  ,,  single  parts,*  other 

than  the  current  issue,  prices  on  application  to  the  Librarian. 
,,  ,,  Cases  for  binding  5/6 

(*  with  some  exceptions  which  are  out  of  print). 

All  communications  relative  to  the  Editorial  side  of  the  Journal,  should 
be  addressed  to  the  Hon.  Editor,  L.  P.  WENHAM,  M.A.,  M.Litt.,  M.Ed., 
“Dunelm”,  41,  Wetherby  Road,  Acomb,  York. 


Life  Members  . . . . . . . . . . 15  15  0 

Annual  Members  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  100 

Subscriptions  are  due  on  January  1st,  and  should  be  paid  to  the  Hon. 
Treasurer,  J.  H.  Ogden,  Lloyds  Bank  Ltd.,  Park  Row,  Leeds  1,  or  through 
the  Subscribers’  Banker. 

Further  information  can  he  obtained  on  application  to  the  Hon.  Secretary. 

Miss  E.  M.  Walker,  F.S.A.,  6,  Aislabie  Close,  Ripon. 

CATALOGUE  OF  MAPS  AND  PLANS  in  the  Society’s  Library,  1937 


A full  description,  by  Sir  W.  H.  St.  John  PI  ope,  with  date-coloured 
Plan  (paper  covers) 


Annual  Subscription,  £1  10  0.  Life  Composition,  £20. 
For  further  particulars  apply  to  the  Hon.  Treasurer, 

J.  H.  OGDEN,  Lloyds  Bank  Ltd.,  Park  Row,  Leeds,  1. 

2 3 

5 6 

s d 

VOL.  FOR  1955. 

VOL.  CXXI— FEET  OF  FINES  for  the  County  of  York  1272-1300. 

Edited  by  F.  H.  Slingsby  . . . . . . 1 11  0 

VOL.  FOR  1956. 


Edited  by  K.  A.  MacMahon  . . . . . . ..200 

VOL.  FOR  1957. 


Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay  . . . . . . . . . . 1 12  6 


Annual  Subscription,  Five  Shillings. 

A complete  list  of  publications  can  be  obtained  from 
the  Librarian,  10,  Park  Place,  Leeds. 


Annual  Subscription,  Five  Shillings. 


Annual  Subscription,  Five  Shillings. 


Annual  Subscription,  Half-a-Crown. 


Vols.  I and  III.  Edited  by  William  Farrer. 

Consolidated  Index  to  these  (Extra  Series,  Vol.  IV) 

Vols.  II  and  IV 

Vol.  V (Honour  of  Richmond).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 
Vol.  VI  (The  Paynel  Fee).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 
Vol.  VII  (Honour  of  Skipton).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 
Vol.  VIII  (Honour  of  Warenne).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 
Vol.  IX  (The  Stuteville  Fee).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 
Vol.  X (The  Trussebut  Fee).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 

Copies  of  Vol.  I are  available  at  7/6  each  (binding  slightly 

each  £10  0 

out  of  print 
out  of  print 
£1  10  0 
£1  10  0 
£2  0 0 
£2  0 0 
£2  0 0 
£2  0 0 



Yorkshire  JUch&olouical  Society 

10,  PARK  PLACE,  LEEDS.  Tel.  27910. 


Royal  Patron. 

H.R.H.  The  PRINCESS  ROYAL,  C.I.,  G.C.V.O.,  G.B.E. 


The  Most  Reverend  the  LORD  ARCHBISHOP  of  YORK. 

The  Right  Rev.  the  LORD  BISHOP  of  WAKEFIELD. 

The  Earl  of  Halifax,  K.G.,  G.C.S.I.,  G.C.I.E. 

The  Earl  of  Scarbrough,  K.G.,  G.C.S.I.,  G.C.I.E,,  G.C.V.O. 


Revd.  Canon  J.  S.  PURVIS,  O.B.E.,  M.A.,  D.D.,  F.S.A.,  F.R.Hist.S. 


Revd.  Canon  E.  C.  HUDSON,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 

H.  C.  HALDANE,  F.S.A. 

R.  J.  A.  BUNNETT,  F.S.A. 

J.  W.  HOUSEMAN,  M.A.,  F.R.Hist.S. 

Sir  C.  T.  CLAY,  C.B.,  Hon.Litt.D.,  F.S.A.,  F.B  A.  (Honorary). 


BRADFER-LAWRENCE,  H.  L.,  f.s.a. 

( Ripon ) 

BRIGGS,  ASA,  professor,  m.a.,, 

f r.hist.s.  {Ripon) 
BROOKS,  F.  W.,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  F.R.HIST.S.  {Hull) 
BROWN,  T.  H.  {Middlesbrough) 

DICKENS.  A.  G.,  professor,  m.a.  {Hull) 
DOYLE-DAVIDSON,  W.  A.  G.,  b.a.  {Leeds) 
GEE,  E.  A.,  m.a.,  ph.d.,  f.s.a.  (York) 
HARTLEY,  B.  R.,  m.a.,  f.s.a.  (Leeds) 
HILDYARD,  E.  J.  W.,  m.a.,  f.s.a.,  f.r.n.s. 

* ( 

HIRD,  HORACE,  m.a.,  f.s.a.  (Bradford) 
HUTT,  L.  R.  (Doncaster) 

KELLETT,  Mrs.  R.  P.,  (Leeds) 
KENT.  B.  W.  J.,  f.s.a.  ( Beckwithshaw ) 

La  PAGE,  J.,  f.s.a.,  f.r.g.s.  (Baildon) 

Le  PATOUREL,  J.,  professor,  m.a.,  ph.d. 

( Leeds) 

PARKER,  R.  G.,  col.,  d.s.o.,  f.s.a.,  j.p. 


PEACOCK,  H.  P.  (Leeds) 

POTTER,  G.  R.,  professor,  m.a.,  ph.d.. 

f.s.a.  ( Sheffield j 

STONEHOUSE,  E.  C.  ( Wakefield ) 

SUGDEN,  Mrs.  A.  M.,  m.a.  (Bradford) 
WALKER,  P.  O.,  m.a.,  ll.b.  (Cawthorne 
WHITEING,  R.  H.,  f.s.a.  (Beverley) 
WHITELOCK,  D.,  professor,  m.a.,  f.s.a., 

F.R.HIST.S.  (Oxford) 
WILLMOT,  G.  F.,  b.a.,  f.s.a.  {York) 

All  Honorary  Officers,  Hon.  Secretaries  of  Committees  and  of  Sections,  and  Representatives 
of  Groups,  and  the  Librarian,  are  ex  officio  members  of  the  Council. 

Honorary  Secretary. 

Miss  E.  M.  WALKER,  6,  Aislabie  Close,  Ripon. 

Honorary  Treasurer. 

J.  H.  OGDEN,  Lloyds  Bank  Ltd.,  Park  Row,  Leeds  1. 

Honorary  Editor. 

L.  P.  WENHAM,  M.A.,  M.Litt.,  M.Ed.,  ‘Dunelm’,  41,  Wetherby  Road,  Acomb,  York. 

Hon.  Secretary  for  the  Record  Series. 

Mrs.  P.  Stanley  PRICE,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  Farnley  Old  Hall,  Otley. 

Hon.  Lecture  Secretary. 

R.  J.  A.  BUNNETT,  F.S.A.,  5,  Waverley  Crescent,  Harrogate. 

Hon.  Secretary  Ancient  Monuments. 

C.  E.  HARTLEY,  6,  Margaret  Road,  Harrogate. 

Hon.  Secretaries  of  Committees,  etc. 

Excursions — R.  P.  KELLETT,  B.Sc.,  A.M.I.Mech.E.,  Oakwood  House,  Oakwood  Lane,  Leeds  8. 

Pre-History  Research  Section — J.  R.  LIDSTER,  Art  Gallery  and  Museum,  Waterdale, 


Roman  Antiquities. — Dr.  J.  EASTWOOD,  M.B.,  B.S.,  M.R.C.S.,  L.R.C.P.,  126.,  Woodside 

Road,  Beaumont  Park,  Huddersfield. 

Local  History  Study  Section — -Miss  A.  W.  RICHARDSON,  The  School  House,  Camblesforth, 

Nr.  Selby. 

Georgian  Section — J.  C.  SCOTT,  “Glengarry,”  The  Raikes,  Skipton-in-Craven. 
Representative  of  the  Harrogate  Group — C.  E.  HARTLEY. 

Representative  of  the  Doncaster  Group — W.  Hardy  STEELE. 

Representative  of  the  Helmsley  and  Area  Group — R.  J.  A.  BUNNETT,  F.S.A. 
Representative  of  the  Forest  of  Galtres  Society — G.  R.  DRAKE. 

Hon.  Secretary,  Pontefract  and  District  Archaeological  Society — K.  GARDINER, 

Cambridge  House,  Horsefair,  Pontefract. 

Librarian,  Archivist  and  Assistant  Secretary. 

Miss  A.  G.  FOSTER,  B.A. 

®bc  'Hiortsbg  Society 


President  The  Rev.  Canon  R.  J.  WOOD,  M.A. 

Hon.  Treasurer  R.  G.  RAWNSLEY,  16,  Queen  Square,  Leeds  2. 

Hon.  Secretary  K.  J.  BONSER,  A.R.I.B.A. 

Assistant  Hon.  Secretary  A.  H.  BOYES. 

Hon.  Editors  Miss  A.  G.  FOSTER,  B.A.,  and  Mrs.  R.  S.  MORTIMER,  B.A. 
Hon.  Librarian  G.  E.  KIRK,  Hon.  M.A. 

Annual  Subscription  15s.  Od.  Life  Membership  £7.  7s. 



archaeological  Journal. 


U?orft0bire  archeological  Society. 

Part  158. 



The  West  Yorkshire  Printing  Co.  Limited,  Wakefield. 



(1 being  the  Second  part  of  Volume  XL.) 


Faith  de  Mallet  Vatcher,  F.S.A. 

Judith  T.  Philips 

DIVES  HOUSE  BARN  at  Dalton,  Near  Huddersfield 
Frank  Atkinson,  B.Sc.,  F.M.A. 


Sir  Charles  Clay,  C.B.,  F.B.A. 

Ian  R.  Christie 


J.  Davies  and  W.  F.  Rankine 

A RING-MARKED  ROCK,  The  Grey  Stone,  Harewood  Park 
E.  T.  Cowling  and  C.  E.  Hartley 

OF  THRYBERGH  (1778-1847) 

J.  T.  Ward 

Michael  Chadwick 

THE  PRE-CONQUEST  CHURCHES  OF  YORK:  with  an  Appendix 
on  Eighth-Century  Northumbrian  Annals 
Kenneth  Harrison 

Martha  J.  Ellis 

A.  S.  Harvey 

Peter  Wenham 
















Thornborough  Cursus,  Yorks. 

Figs.:  1,  p.  170;  2,  p.  172;  3,  p.  174;  4,  p.  176. 

Plates:  I,  facing  p.  170;  IIa  and  11b,  facing  p.  172;  IIIa  and  I11b,  facing 
p.  178. 

An  Iron  Age  Site  At  Driffield,  East  Riding,  Yorks. 

Figs.:  1 , facing  p.  183;  2,  facing  p.  184;  3 and  4,  p.  187;  5 and  6,  p.  189; 
7 and  8,  p.  190. 

Dives  House  Barn. 

Plan:  facing  p.  192. 

Plates:  I and  II,  facing  p.  194;  III  and  IV,  facing  p.  195;  V and  VI, 
facing  p.  196;  VII,  facing  p.  197. 

Mesolithic  Flint  Axes  from  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire. 

Figs.:  1,  p.  210;  2,  p.  211;  3,  p.  212. 

A Ring-Marked  Rock. 

Figs.:  1 and  2,  facing  p.  216. 


Pedigree:  facing  p.  268. 

Fig. : \,p.  273. 

Plates:  I,  facing  p.  276;  II,  facing  p.  277 . 

Seven  Archaeological  Discoveries  in  Yorkshire. 

Figs.:  1,  p.  299;  2,  p.  300;  3,  p.  302;  4,  p.  304;  5,  p.  306;  6,  p.  308; 
7,  p.  310;  8,  p.  311;  9,  p.  312;  10,  p.  316;  11,  p.  318;  12,  p.  319; 
13,  p.  320;  14,  p.  321;  15,  p.  322;  16,  p.  323. 

Plates:  I,  facing  p.  298;  II,  facing  p.  308;  III,  facing  p.  312;  IV,  facing 
p.  314;  V,  facing  p.  316;  VI,  facing  p.  318. 

Part  CL VIII. 


Yorkshire  Archeological  Journal 


By  Faith  de  Mallet  Vatcher,  F.S.A. 

In  January  1958  an  excavation  and  survey  of  the  south- 
west end  of  the  Thornborough  Cursus  was  undertaken  by  the 
writer  on  behalf  of  the  Ancient  Monuments  Dept,  of  the  Ministry 
of  Works.  Owing  to  extensive  gravel  quarrying,  part  of  the 
north-west  side  of  the  cursus  ditch  had  been  exposed  and  part 
quarried  away,  when,  following  the  reporting  of  this  fact  by  Dr. 
J.  K.  St.  Joseph,  who  had  recently  carried  out  an  aerial  recon- 
naissance, the  Ministry  obtained  permission  to  excavate  from  the 
owner  of  the  quarry,  Mr.  Avison,  who  kindly  suspended  operations 
in  that  area  until  the  examination  was  completed. 

The  excavation  covered  a period  of  three  weeks  during 
which  time  work  was  hampered  by  the  severe  weather  conditions. 
Two  workmen  were  employed  continuously. 

There  were  no  small  finds.  Dr.  Cornwall  has  kindly  analysed 
soil  samples  taken  from  two  sections  of  the  cursus  ditch. 

Later  in  1958  further  quarrying  disclosed  a stone  cist  con- 
taining a crouched  inhumation  within  the  end  of  the  cursus. 

The  Site. 

The  National  Grid  reference  for  the  south-west  end  of  the 
cursus  is  SE  282791. 

Situated  at  the  western  edge  of  the  Vale  of  York,  it  is  about 
5 miles  north-west  of  Ripon,  about  a mile  east  of  West  Tanfield, 
and  runs  parallel  to  the  Tanfield-Thornborough  road.  Its  proximity 
to  the  Thornborough  Circles  has  already  been  discussed  by  Mr.  N. 
Thomas  in  this  Journal,1  in  his  report  on  the  excavations  he 
carried  out  on  the  central  henge  and  on  the  underlying  cursus 
ditch.  The  Scorton  cursus  lies  roughly  13  miles  to  the  north. 

(Fig.  1). 

The  Thornborough  Cursus  is  aligned  approximately  NE-SW. 
It  is  140  feet  above  sea  level  and  about  20  feet  above  the  level  of 
the  River  Ure,  from  which  it  is  less  than  J mile  distant.  The 
surrounding  country  is  flat  and  open,  and  almost  entirely  under 
arable  cultivation. 

1 Y.A.J.,  xxxviii  (1955),  425-445. 

Crown  copyright  reserved.  Reproduced  by  permission  of  J.  K . St.  Joseph. 
Plate  I. 

Aerial  photograph  showing  exposed  portion  of  cursus  in  foreground. 




In  the  area  of  the  cursus  an  outcrop  of  the  Magnesian 
Limestone,  running  north  and  south,  forms  the  subsoil.  The 
Millstone  Grit  rises  to  the  west,  and  beyond  this  the  Mountain 
Limestone  of  the  Pennines.  Drift  material  of  boulder  clay,  glaci- 
fluvial  gravels,  river  gravel,  sand  and  flood-loam  mantles  these  strata. 

Previous  History. 

The  presence  of  the  cursus  was  first  revealed  in  an  air 
photograph  of  the  nearby  henges  taken  by  Dr.  J.  K.  St.  Joseph 
between  1945  and  1952.  This  photograph  showed  a pair  of  parallel 
ditches,  which  appeared  to  underlie  the  central  circle.1 

In  1952,  during  the  excavation  of  the  central  circle  by  Mr. 
N.  Thomas,  the  northern  ditch  of  the  cursus  was  investigated  in 
two  places,  where  it  was  proved  to  underlie  the  southern  bank  of 
the  circle.  Three  sections  in  the  quarry  further  to  the  south-west 
were  also  exposed. 

It  was  shown  that  the  cursus  had  preceded  the  central 
circle,  and  soil  analysis  indicated  that  it  was  silted  up  and  grass 
grown  by  the  time  the  circle  was  constructed. 

With  two  exceptions,  all  the  sections  showed  a shallow 
U-shaped  ditch,  7-10  feet  wide  and  2-3  feet  deep.  There  was 
gravel  silting  at  the  bottom  of  the  ditch,  overlaid  by  dark  loamy 
earth,  slightly  gravelly,  above  which  was  a more  sandy  orange- 
red  loam.  At  the  level  of  the  edges  of  the  ditch  a dark  humic 
layer  represented  a buried  soil.  Analysis  indicated  that  the  dark- 
ness of  the  primary  filling  of  the  ditch  was  due  to  the  presence  of 
large  amounts  of  organic  matter.  This  suggested  a deciduous 
forest  environment  with  plentiful  drifted  leaves.  One  exception 
was  a section  in  the  centre  of  the  quarry,  on  its  south  side,  thought 
to  be  that  of  the  south  ditch  of  the  cursus.  Here  the  ditch  was 
V-shaped,  and  the  filling  was  slightly  different,  containing  no 
dark  humic  layer  but  in  its  place  a thick  band  of  orange-brown 
loam.  This  section  was  however  out  of  line  with  the  rest  of  the 
cursus  ditch,  being  further  over  to  the  south  east,  and  it  is  there- 
fore questionable  whether  it  was  part  of  the  same  complex.  In  a 
further  section  in  the  quarry,  across  the  south  ditch,  the  primary 
dark  filling  was  missing  but  the  ditch  was  U-shaped. 

Method  of  Excavation. 

A base  line  of  pegs,  400  feet  in  length,  was  laid  out  down 
the  supposed  mid-line  of  the  cursus.  These  pegs  were  40  feet 
apart  and  were  numbered  alphabetically  from  the  south-west  end. 
The  exposed  part  of  the  ditch  on  the  north-west  side  was  surveyed 
by  offsets  from  this  line,  and  8 cuttings  on  the  south-east  side 
were  laid  out  and  numbered  in  relation  to  it,  for  the  purpose  of 
bisecting  the  ditch. 

The  Excavation. 

The  purpose  of  the  excavation  was  threefold:  to  obtain  an 
accurate  plan  of  as  much  of  the  cursus  as  possible;  to  prove  or 

1 Y.A.J.,  xxxviii  (1955),  pi.  II. 










Fig.  2. 

Plan  showing  present  known  extent  of  cursus  and  its  relationship  to  the 

Thornborough  Circles. 

Plate  IIa. 

The  northernmost  gap,  with  the  partially  excavated  ditch  ends  on 

either  side. 

Plate  IIb. 

The  crooked  line  of  the  ditch  on  the  north- 
west side  of  the  cursus. 



disprove  the  existence  of  opposing  gaps;  and  to  obtain  any 
structural  or  dating  evidence. 

A considerable  length  of  the  cursus  had  already  been 
destroyed  by  an  earlier  quarry,  in  which  were  the  sections  of  the 
ditch  previously  exposed  by  Mr.  Thomas.  The  part  to  be  examined 
in  the  present  excavation  lay  immediately  to  the  south-west  of 
this  and  consisted  of  two  parallel  ditches  approximately  345  feet 
long  and  140  feet  apart,  meeting  at  the  end  in  a broad  curve.  The 
top  2-3  feet  of  soil  had  been  scraped  off  over  the  north-western 
ditch,  revealing  the  black  humic  silt  in  the  lower  levels.  The 
strong  contrast  of  the  black  silt  with  the  gravel  subsoil  had  enabled 
the  cursus  to  be  clearly  seen  and  photographed  from  the  air.  (PI.  I). 

Dr.  St.  Joseph’s  photographs  had  indicated  a number  of 
gaps  in  the  exposed  ditch.  Three  of  these  were  proved  by  excava- 
tion, the  ditch  on  either  side  sloping  abruptly  to  a greater  depth 
(PI.  Ila);  one  was  found  to  be  merely  an  irregularity  in  depth; 
and  another,  halfway  along  the  ditch,  had  already  been  swallowed 
up  by  the  quarry.  Of  the  three  existing  gaps,  one,  4 feet  wide, 
was  situated  at  the  end  of  the  cursus  near  the  centre;  another, 
10  feet  wide,  near  the  end  on  the  north-west  side;  and  the  third, 
5 feet  wide,  at  the  northern  extremity  of  the  exposed  ditch.  A 
short  distance  from  this  last  gap  the  course  of  the  ditch  was 
crooked  for  about  40  feet  of  its  length  (PI.  lib). 

As  Mr.  Thomas  had  previously  noted,  from  Dr.  St.  Joseph’s 
photographs  it  was  possible  to  trace  the  continuance  of  the  cursus 
ditches  from  the  far  side  of  the  old  quarry,  past  and  under  the 
central  henge,  and  into  the  field  beyond.  The  distance  between 
them  remained  constant,  but  they  followed  a slight  curve  to  the 
east.  A further  stretch  of  the  cursus  was  plotted  on  the  ground 
from  crop  marks  by  the  writer  during  the  early  summer  of  1958. 
This  crossed  the  greater  part  of  two  fields  and  reached  the  boundary 
of  the  first  cottage  in  Thornborough,  by  which  time  the  distance 
between  the  ditches  had  narrowed  slightly.  With  the  excavated 
portion,  this  final  survey  brought  the  total  known  length  of  the 
cursus  to  3,925  feet  (Fig.  2).  At  no  point  was  there  any  surface 
indication  of  either  ditch  or  bank. 

To  find  the  exact  position  of  the  ditch  on  the  south-east 
side,  cutting  A1  was  laid  out  as  a preliminary  guide  to  follow 
through  the  direction  of  the  end  curve.  This  cutting  also  gave  a 
true  ditch  section  at  a known  point.  From  the  angle  of  the  ditch 
here,  and  from  the  previously  supposed  width  of  the  cursus,  the 
cutting  Cl  then  appeared  to  be  in  the  correct  position  to  cut  the 
ditch.  This  however  was  not  so,  but  in  the  next  cutting,  C2,  taken 
further  in,  the  ditch  was  found,  giving  the  width  at  that  point  as 
144  feet.  The  width  narrowed  slightly  between  this  cutting  and  B2. 

It  was  possible  that  the  large  gap  in  the  ditch  towards  the 
end  of  the  cursus  on  the  exposed  side  might  have  been  opposed 
by  a similar  gap  on  the  south-east  side.  The  cuttings  A2,  B2,  and 
then  B1  were  dug  to  ascertain  this,  covering  a length  of  36  feet, 
but  the  ditch  was  uninterrupted.  The  lack  of  gaps  in  this  area 



was  confirmed  later  in  1958,  when  further  stripping  of  the  topsoil 
had  taken  place,  exposing  the  entire  end  of  the  cursus  as  far  as 
the  cutting  B2  (Fig.  3). 

The  area  opposite  the  northern  gap  was  tested  in  the  cutting 
J 1 , but  here  too  the  ditch  was  continuous  although  less  clearly 
indicated.  The  stratification  shown  in  the  section  was  dissimilar 
to  and  less  conclusive  than  that  of  the  other  cuttings  at  the  end  of 
the  cursus,  and  there  is  a possibility  that  the  ditch  was  refilled. 

In  the  cuttings  A1  to  C2  the  sections  were  fairly  similar. 
The  width  of  the  U-shaped  ditch  varied  between  7 and  9 feet,  and 
its  depth  between  2 and  3 feet.  The  undisturbed  gravel  subsoil 
had  weathered  to  a depth  of  up  to  18",  both  outside  the  ditch 
and  below  it,  causing  in  some  cases  a funnel-shaped  discolouration 
which  gave  the  ditch  a deceptive  false  outline.  In  two  instances, 
cuttings  A2  and  C2,  there  was  a little  primary  gravel  silt  at  the 
base,  coming  in  from  the  inside  only  and  clearly  the  first  fallback 
from  the  bank.  This  was  missing  in  sections  A1  and  B2.  Over- 
lying  the  gravel  and  stretching  from  edge  to  edge  of  the  ditch 
was  a thick  layer  of  black  humic  clay,  organic  in  origin  and  sug- 
gesting the  rapid  accumulation  of  drifted  leaves  and  litter  from  a 
deciduous  forest  environment.  Resting  upon  this  layer  there  was 
a second  slide  of  gravel,  again  from  the  inside  only,  which  contained 
some  large  pebbles  at  its  lowest  point  over  the  centre  of  the  ditch. 
This  appeared  to  be  the  slow  secondary  silt  from  the  bank,  con- 
firming its  inside  position.  A red-brown  loam  containing  some 
gravel  completed  the  ditch  filling  and  continued  as  a thin  layer 
outside  the  ditch,  over  the  weathered  gravel  and  below  modern 
ploughsoil.  (Fig.  4 and  PL  IIIA). 

Cutting  J1  presented  a different  picture.  The  north  side  of 
the  ditch  was  defined  only  by  the  line  of  the  weathered  gravel, 
the  south  by  a line  of  large  pebbles.  Within  the  ditch  no  stratifica- 
tion was  visible,  the  slightly  less  coarse  gravel  which  it  contained 
being  homogenous.  Overlying  the  ditch,  and  partly  overlying  the 
vestige  of  bank  here  remaining  on  the  inside,  there  was  a thick 
layer  of  black  humic  clay  which  continued  to  the  end  of  the 
section  outside  the  ditch  and  represented  a buried  surface.  Between 
the  black  layer  and  modern  plough  the  red-brown  loam  was 

This  section  was  almost  duplicated  in  cutting  J2,  which  was 
Mr.  Thomas’s  old  quarry  section  ( Y.A.J. , xxxviii  (1955),  431, 
fig.  4),  reopened  in  order  to  clarify  the  somewhat  confusing 
section  in  Jl.  In  J2,  the  sides  of  the  ditch  were  a little  more 
clearly  defined,  and  the  contents  consisted  of  the  same  homo- 
genous but  rather  earthy  gravel.  The  black  humic  layer  was  at 
the  same  level  as  in  ji. 

It  was  apparent  from  the  sections  A1  to  C2,  and  also  from 
the  exposed  length  of  cursus,  that  after  a very  slight  fallback 
from  the  thrown  up  bank  the  shallow  cursus  ditch  silted  up  with 
the  leaves  and  litter  of  its  forest  environment.  After  this  period 
of  silting  some  disturbance  took  place  which  caused  more  of  the 



immwmim, m 


' / 

/■a  o 



TplHi f ! 1 1 PMMIM'MMf 


1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 Till  Vi  1 1 1 H M 1 1 M III  I M I li  I ii  l ■«  n >.,##.  I • *» ,» >,  • • »•« . * *.  v»  , «\  .* . * vu. 

* ~ • • « * A •.;/*  :.***>'  ^p;. 


■77?: 7"? 

<=>  C3 






Fig.  4. 

Sections  of  the  cursus  ditch,  showing  the  bank  material  falling  in  from  the 

inside  (left-hand)  edge. 



bank  to  slip  into  the  remaining  hollow.  The  later  filling  of  red- 
brown  loam  was  likely  to  have  been  mostly  rainwash,  being  less  stony. 

This  corresponds  only  in  part  with  the  sections  in  Mr. 
Thomas’s  cuttings  IV  and  V across  the  north-eastern  cursus 
ditch,  under  and  outside  the  henge  bank.  At  the  bottom  gravel 
had  accumulated,  appearing  to  come  from  the  outside  of  the 
ditch;  above  this  was  a “dark  loamy  earth”  containing  some 
gravel,  to  a depth  of  1 foot;  over  this,  less  pebbly  and  more  sandy 
orange-red  loam  which  was  in  its  turn  overlaid,  in  the  cutting 
under  the  henge  bank,  by  a “dark  humic  layer  representing  a 
buried  soil”.  Upon  this  layer  rested  the  bank  of  the  henge. 

In  Dr.  Cornwall’s  opinion,  the  darkness  of  the  primary 
filling  of  the  cursus  and  of  the  layer  sealing  it  before  the  piling  up 
of  the  henge  bank  was  due  to  the  presence  of  a large  amount  of 
organic  matter.  But  whereas  in  Mr.  Thomas’s  section  there  would 
seem  to  have  been  two  dark  layers  chemically  similar,  in  cuttings 
A1  to  C2  there  was  only  one,  forming  the  primary  filling  of  the 
ditch.  With  which  of  the  two  dark  layers  does  the  primary  filling 
then  agree? 

Presumably,  since  the  two  layers  were  chemically  similar 
they  represent  the  same  source  of  origin,  i.e.  deciduous  forest 
environment  of  the  same  climatic  conditions,  separated  by  a 
fairly  short  time.  The  layer  between  them  must  therefore  repre- 
sent a period  of  cessation  in  the  accumulation  of  forest  litter, 
during  which  time  silting  from  the  bank  took  place. 

If  the  primary  dark  filling  of  the  ditch  in  cuttings  A1  to 
C2  belongs  to  the  first  phase  of  forest  accumulation,  the  missing 
dark  second  layer  could  have  weathered  or  been  ploughed  away, 
the  overlying  depth  of  soil  not  being  enough  to  preserve  it.  In 
the  cutting  under  the  henge,  the  material  of  the  bank  would  have 
protected  it. 

If  on  the  other  hand  the  dark  primary  filling  corresponds 
with  Mr.  Thomas’s  upper  layer,  then  the  question  remains  why 
the  ditch  had  not  silted  up  to  the  same  high  level.  The  answer 
could  be  that  the  lower  of  Mr.  Thomas’s  dark  layers  represented 
the  fallback  of  humic  soil  from  the  bank  and  was  not  a humic 
accumulation  as  such.  In  this  case,  unless  the  ditch  was  re-dug, 
the  lack  of  similar  fallback  and  silting  at  the  end  of  the  cursus 
could  only  be  explained  by  the  bank  being  placed  farther  away 
from  the  ditch  edge.  The  ditch  here  would  still  be  hollow  enough 
to  collect  a great  deal  of  the  later  forest  litter. 

In  cutting  Jl,  where  the  section  was  different,  the  dark 
primary  filling  was  missing,  the  ditch  being  filled  with  gravel, 
but  the  buried  soil  sealing  the  ditch  and  continuing  at  the  same 
depth  outside  it  was  present.  This  was  also  the  case  in  J2,  Mr. 
Thomas’s  old  quarry  section,  of  which  Dr.  Cornwall  says,  “The 
primary  filling  contained  much  less  organic  matter,  but  a dark 
band  with  much  humus  overrode  the  banks  of  the  ditch  and  was 
continuous  with  that  noticed  in  the  adjacent  natural  section. 
This  too  appears  to  be  a buried  surface,  but  the  cause  of  its  burial 


is  not  clear.  So  far  from  the  henge  the  overlying  accumulation 
must  have  been  naturally  formed". 

It  is  almost  certain  that  this  dark  layer  in  cuttings  J1  and 
J2  corresponds  with  the  upper  dark  layer  in  Mr.  Thomas's  cutting 
IV.  Not  only  were  they  at  the  same  level  over  the  ditch,  but  in 
the  vicinity  of  J2  the  layer  was  seen  for  some  distance  along  the 
quarry  face,  and  in  view  of  Dr.  Cornwall’s  remarks  was  no  doubt 
the  same  surface  on  which  the  henge  was  built. 

There  are  two  possible  reasons  to  account  for  the  lack  of 
dark  primary  filling  in  the  ditch.  The  first  is  that  the  ditch  here 
silted  naturally  with  the  material  from  the  bank,  leaving  no 
hollow.  The  bank  at  this  point  would  have  had  to  be  entirely 
gravel,  falling  back  rapidly  enough  to  leave  no  tiplines.  The 
second  possibility  is  that  the  ditch  was  refilled  soon  after  being 
dug.  To  support  this,  it  was  opposite  the  gap  on  the  northern 
side,  and  this  part  of  the  ditch  may  have  been  dug  in  error  when 
the  intention  was  to  have  opposing  gaps.  The  fact  that  there 
were  no  tiplines  suggests  artificial  filling.  The  gaps  at  the  end  of 
the  cursus  were  not  opposed,  however. 

Dr.  Cornwall,  in  his  analysis  of  the  primary  filling  and 
buried  soil  layer,  states  that  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  dark 
layers  in  C2  and  J1  correspond  in  substance  and  in  age  and 
represent  the  locally  slightly  variable  products  of  the  same  soil- 
forming process.  (See  appendix).  This  chemical  evidence  would 
support  the  likelihood  that  the  dark  filling  in  cuttings  A1  to  C2 
and  the  upper  dark  layer  in  the  cutting  under  the  henge  were 
also  contemporary,  but  does  not  altogether  preclude  the  possibility 
that  they  were  not,  depending  upon  the  time  involved.  The 
writer  inclines  toward  the  opinion  that  the  bank  was  far  enough 
inside  the  ditch  at  the  cursus  end  to  prevent  much  fallback  before 
the  accumulation  of  forest  litter,  and  that  the  buried  soil  layer 
in  J1  overlay  a re-filled  ditch  at  that  point.  The  evidence  is 
unfortunately  insufficient  to  provide  a conclusive  answer. 


Excavation  and  survey  proved  the  width  of  the  Thorn- 
borough  cursus  to  be  144  feet,  and  its  present  known  length  to 
be  3,925  feet.  The  bank  was  found  to  have  been  on  the  inside  of 
the  ditch,  which  was  itself  7 — 9 feet  wide  and  2 — 3 feet  deep. 
Near  the  broadly  curving  end  of  the  cursus  two  gaps  were  revealed 
on  the  north-west  side,  and  a third  farther  along  may  have  been 
opposed  on  the  south-east  where  it  is  possible  the  ditch  was 
refilled.  The  ditches  were  filled  with  the  accumulation  of  litter 
from  the  deciduous  forest  environment  contemporary  with  and 
succeeding  the  time  of  construction. 


The  Thornborough  Cursus  belongs  to  a class  of  ceremonial 
monument  considered  to  be  of  Late  Neolithic  date,  and  at  present 
being  studied  by  Professor  Atkinson.1 

1 Atkinson,  Excavations  at  Dorchester,  Oxon,  Vol.  II  forthcoming. 

Plate  IIIa. 

Section  of  ditch  in  cutting  B2. 

Plate  IIIb. 

Stone  cist  as  exposed  in  the  quarry  face. 



At  Thornborough  there  was  no  dating  evidence  with  the 
exception  of  the  soil  analysis,  which  indicated  that  the  conditions 
were  attributable  to  the  Late  Atlantic  climatic  phase,  compatible 
with  the  transition  from  Late  Neolithic  to  Early  Bronze  Age. 

Consisting  of  an  avenue  of  two  parallel  ditches,  generally 
closed  at  the  ends,  cursuses  are,  according  to  present  knowledge, 
peculiar  to  the  British  Isles.  They  are  sometimes  associated  with 
long  barrows,  as  at  the  Stonehenge  cursus,1  where  one  lies  across 
the  east  end;  at  Gussage,  Dorset,2  where  the  cursus  is  believed  to 
postdate  four  long  barrows;  and  at  Dorchester,  Oxon,3  where  one 
ditch  is  interrupted  by  a Long  Mortuary  Enclosure.  The  cursus 
at  North  Stoke,  Oxon,  runs  up  to  another  Long  Mortuary  En- 
closure.4 There  appears  to  be  an  axial  mound,  not  necessarily  a 
long  barrow,  within  the  extreme  south  end  of  the  Scorton  cursus. 
They  are  also  found  in  the  neighbourhood  of  henge  monuments. 
At  Thornborough  itself,  it  was  primary  to  the  henge;  Phase  I at 
Stonehenge  may  be  associated  with  at  least  one  of  the  two 
cursuses  a short  distance  to  the  north;  and  at  Dorchester,  Oxon, 
the  henges  and  the  cursus  are  in  close  proximity.  It  is  question- 
able whether  cursuses  have  any  relationship  with  avenues  of 
earthwork  or  stone  in  connection  with  stone  circles  (e.g.  Stone- 
henge, Avebury,  Stanton  Drew).  Their  purpose  is  obscure. 

Thornborough,  like  other  examples,  had  its  banks  on  the 
inside  of  the  ditches.  The  gaps  in  the  ditch  can  be  paralleled 
elsewhere;  those  at  Stonehenge,  Dorchester,  and  the  Dorset 
cursus  were  opposing.  The  gaps  in  the  Dorset  cursus  were  10  feet 
and  40  feet  wide  respectively.  At  Dorchester  it  is  interesting  to 
note  that  one  of  the  three  gaps  was  formed  by  throwing  the  bank 
back  into  the  ditch.  The  only  parallel  to  the  markedly  rounded 
end  of  the  Thornborough  cursus  is  the  S.E.  end  of  the  Dorchester 
site.  The  ends  of  all  other  cursuses  are  either  sharply  squared  off 
at  right  angles  or  only  very  slightly  convex.  The  narrowing 
towards  the  end  is  paralleled  by  the  west  end  of  the  Stonehenge 
cursus;  and  there  is  a much  more  abrupt  and  less  gradual  narrowing 
at  the  N.E.  end  of  the  Dorset  cursus  on  Bokerley  Down. 

The  size  of  cursuses  varies;  Gussage,  Dorset,  is  6 miles  long 
and  300  feet  wide,  Stonehenge  9,090  feet  long  and  330  feet  wide, 
Dorchester  4,000  feet  long  and  210  feet  wide,  and  Scorton  1 mile 
long  and  200  feet  wide. 

The  cursus  at  Thornborough,  together  with  that  at  Scorton 
a few  miles  to  the  north,  emphasizes  the  strength  of  the  Neolithic 
population  in  that  area  and  illustrates  again  the  connection  in 
Neolithic  times  between  Yorkshire  and  Wessex. 

Since  this  report  was  written,  aerial  photography  in  the 
summer  of  1959  has  revealed  further  cursuses  in  Britain. 

1 Arch.  Journ.,  CIV  (1948),  7-19. 

2 Ant.  113  (March  1955),  4-9. 

3 Atkinson,  Excavations  at  Dorchester,  Oxon,  Vol.  I,  Fig.  2. 

4 Oxoniensia  XV  (1950),  107.  Ibid.,  XVI  (1951),  82. 




Report  on  the  Soil-Samples,  by  I.  W.  Cornwall. 

Two  sections  were  sampled: — 

A.  Section  of  the  cursus-ditch  (6  samples). 

B.  A section  from  modern  plough-soil  to  unweathered  gravel  (5  samples), 
taken  outside  the  ditch  Jl,  for  comparison  with  the  above. 

The  object  of  the  investigation  was  to  re-examine  the  evidence  pre- 
viously described  (refs,  below)  for  the  nature  of  a widespread  humic  layer 
(presumed  to  be  a buried  forest-soil)  occurring  both  in  the  ditch-filling  and 
outside  the  ditch  in  cutting  J.l  (samples  Nos.  A. 3 and  B.3,  respectively). 

Samples  were  examined  for  pH,  presence  of  carbonates,  phosphates 
and  content  of  organic  matter,  with  the  following  results: — 



— co3 




(mgs./lOO  gms.) 

A.l  (base) 




























+ (v.  little) 

























+ (v. little) 




of  the  modern  surface-soil  (A. 6,  B.5)  and  of  the  buried 

soils  (A. 3,  B.3)  were  prepared  and  examined  microscopically. 

This  technique 

was  not  available  at  the  time  of  the  former  investigation. 

The  following  features  were  observed: — 

A.  6.  The  fabric  was  dense,  with  few  voids.  The  minerals  were  almost 

exclusively  siliceous — quartz,  flint  and  quartzite — with  only  very 
rare  grains  of  heavier  minerals  and  no  felspars.  The  plasma  was 
humic  and  flocculated,  sepia-brown  throughout  in  colour,  even  under 
high  magnification. 

B. 5.  The  section  was,  as  would  be  expected,  almost  identical  with  the 

above.  There  were,  perhaps,  a few  more  heavy  minerals,  including 
one  sizeable  tourmaline  embedded  in  a quartzite.  A single  felspar 
was  seen.  A few  larger  voids  show  that  the  general  fabric  of  the 
modern  soil  is  rather  more  open  than  is  suggested  by  the  dense  mass 
of  A. 6.  The  latter  was  probably  chosen  for  sectioning  for  just  that 
reason,  that  it  formed  a largish  coherent  mass. 

A.  3.  Under  low  power  (2"  objective)  this  specimen  looked  very  similar  to 

the  above  two,  save  for  a somewhat  finer  and  better  crumb-structure. 
With  the  Y objective  it  could  be  seen  that  though  the  greater  part 
of  the  plasma  was  dark  sepia  in  colour,  flocculated  and  isotropic 
under  crossed  nicols,  there  were  everywhere  streaks  and  smears  of 
light  ochre-coloured  material  with  flow-structures  showing  marked 
anisotropy,  especially  concentrated  at  the  grain-boundaries.  These 
show  an  incipient  movement  of  iron-stained  clay-minerals  in  a 
colloidal  form,  protected  from  flocculation  by  a new  factor,  colloidal 
silicic  acid,  absent  in  the  modern  soil.  The  structures  are  indicative 
of  climatic  conditions  of  formation  somewhat  warmer  than  those  of 
the  present  day,  though  not  drier.  They  are  locally  somewhat  masked 
by  the  considerable  humus  accumulation. 

B. 3.  The  corresponding  sample,  from  a little  distance  away  from  the  ditch, 

was  slightly  poorer  in  humus,  and  showed  the  same  flow-structures 
in  even  more  marked  degree.  There  is  little  doubt,  therefore,  that 
A. 3 and  B.3  correspond  in  substance  and  in  age  and  represent  the 
locally  slightly  variable  products  of  the  same  soil-forming  process. 




The  humus-figures  clearly  show  some  concentration  of  organic  matter 
in  samples  A. 3 and  B.3,  which  even  exceeds  that  in  the  modern  plough-soil, 
so  that  this  seems  to  indicate  a buried  surface  (soil  A-horizon)  in  each  case. 
The  markedly  fine  crumb-structure  in  both  is  also  significant  of  the  action 
of  rootlets  and  of  worms. 

The  pH-figures  are  uniformly  acid,  but  not  so  markedly  as  to  produce 
ill-humified  moder-humus  and  podsolization.  Carbonate  is  present  only  as 
a trace  in  the  unweathered  gravel.  Phosphate  is  also  so  low  in  concentration 
as  to  be  negligible. 

The  thin  sections  afford  full  corroboration  of  the  nature  of  the  deeper 
humic  layers  as  buried  soils. 

The  modern  soil  is  of  the  browneartli  type,  from  its  prevailing  acidity 
and  rather  dense,  blocky  structure,  despite  the  plough,  specifically,  an 
oligotrophic  braunerde  (poor  in  plant-nutrients).  The  iron  compounds  and 
humus  in  the  intergranular  spaces  are  flocculated  and  clearly  immobile. 

In  the  two  samples  of  the  buried  soil  there  is  an  incipient  mobilization 
of  iron  and  clay-minerals  from  the  plasma,  which  forms  in  anisotropic  ochre- 
yellow  streaks  concentrated  at  the  grain-boundaries.  Though  there  are 
numerous  voids  and  conducting  channels,  plasma  transport  has  not  yet 
begun  to  form  more  than  a thin  coat  on  their  walls  and  not  to  choke  them 
with  plasma  in  transit  as  in  the  soil-type  called  Parabraunerde,  typically 
developed  on  Interglacial  and  Postglacial  loess-loams  of  Atlantic  Europe. 
The  conclusion  is  therefore  justified  that  the  warm-moist  climatic  conditions 
favouring  the  transport  of  soil-colloids  did  not  last  long  enough  or  were  not 
sufficiently  intense  to  permit  the  development  of  a full  Parabraunerde, 
though  the  buried  soil  was  evidently  tending  to  be  modified  in  that  direction. 

The  relative  richness  in  humus  and  good  crumb-structure  of  the  buried 
soil  suggest  a forest  vegetation  of  rather  higher  base-status  than  the  modern 
soil.  This  is  supported  by  the  slightly  higher  organic  concentration  in  the 
case  of  the  ditch-filling  A.  3.  Leaf  mould  and  forest  litter  generally  would 
accumulate  more  plentifully  in  hollows  such  as  those  afforded  by  the  only 
partly-filled  cursus-ditches. 

It  remains  to  identify,  if  possible,  the  particular  period  during  which 
the  buried  soil  was  formed.  Evidence  of  wind-sorting  in  the  overlying 
loam  (Cornwall,  1953)  is  probably  attributable  to  the  Subboreal  climatic 
phase,  which  falls  within  our  Early  Bronze  Age.  The  buried  soil  seems 
immediately  to  precede  this  and  so  probably  corresponds  to  the  rather 
brief  period  of  maximum  warmth  known  as  the  Climatic  Optimum  of  the 
Postglacial,  which  occurred  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Atlantic  climatic  phase. 
The  first  filling  of  the  cursus-ditches  would  thus  correspond  to  the  later 
Neolithic  or  the  time  of  transition  from  Neolithic  to  Bronze  Age. 


Cornwall,  I.  W.  1953.  ‘Soil-science  and  Archaeology  with  illustrations 
from  some  British  Bronze-Age  monuments’.  Proc.  Prehist.  Soc., 
19,  129-147. 

Thomas,  N.  1956.  ‘The  Thornborough  Circles,  near  Ripon,  North 
Riding’.  Yorks.  Arch.  /.,  xxxviii  (1955),  425-445. 

1 Note  on  the  cist  burial  found  within  the  Thornborough 


During  July  1958  further  cutting  back  of  the  quarry  face  revealed  a 
stone  cist  containing  a crouched  inhumation,  approximately  on  the  centre 
line  of  the  cursus  and  about  15  feet  from  the  end.  It  consisted  of  a stone 
box  54  inches  long  by  41  inches  wide  by  37  inches  deep,  and  set  in  gravel. 
The  four  walls  and  the  roof  were  formed  by  5 limestone  slabs,  each  about 
5 inches  thick.  The  top  slab  was  3 feet  6 inches  below  modern  ground  level. 
The  base  of  the  cist  was  dished,  beneath  the  burial.  (See  Plate  Illb). 

The  cist  contained  a crouched  burial  which  was  positioned  with  its 
head  pointing  to  the  end  of  the  cursus  and  with  its  body  facing  south-east. 



From  information  obtained  the  bones  were  in  good  condition:  they  were 
later  removed  by  Mr.  G.  F.  Willmot  of  the  Yorkshire  Museum.  No  grave 
goods  were  present. 

The  above  information  was  obtained  from  the  excavator  operator 
whose  machine  uncovered  the  cist,  and  from  the  later  measurement  of  the 







G~S_  PH 


< \ 


TT  W 


0 12  3 4 5 6 


Fig.  1. 




By  Judith  T.  Philips. 

The  Driffield  Iron  Age  site  is  situated  on  the  property  of 
the  Driffield  R.A.F.  Station,  and  my  thanks  are  due  to  the  Officer 
commanding  and  his  staff  for  their  kindness  and  co-operation  in 
providing  access  to  the  site  and  many  other  facilities;  also  to  the 
Ministry  of  Works,  who  sponsored  the  excavation,  making  all 
arrangements  and  supplying  labour  and  equipment;  to  D. 
Appleby  for  his  assistance  in  drawing  the  sections,  and  to  M. 
Ricketts  for  drawing  the  pottery. 

During  the  digging  of  a trench  for  drains  for  the  new  married 
quarters  at  Driffield  R.A.F.  Station,  the  discovery  of  a skeleton 
was  reported  to  the  local  archaeologists,  Messrs.  C.  & E.  Grantham. 
On  visiting  the  site  they  discovered  that  as  well  as  the  skeleton 
there  was  evidence  of  several  ditches  running  diagonally  across 
the  trench.  Messrs.  C.  & E.  Grantham  proceeded  to  excavate  the 
skeleton,  which  proved  to  be  a crouched  burial  in  a shallow  grave 
devoid  of  any  pottery  or  other  grave  goods.  After  photographing 
the  skeleton  they  filled  the  burial  site  in  again.  They  also  examined 
the  ditches  where  they  crossed  the  trench  and  recovered  a quantity 
of  pottery  therefrom  which  they  were  subsequently  kind  enough 
to  allow  me  to  examine,  and  then  informed  the  Yorkshire  Museum 
of  the  existence  of  the  site.  A further  excavation  then  took  place, 
under  the  direction  of  Mr.  G.  F.  Willmot,  Keeper  of  the  Yorkshire 
Museum,  and  an  area  of  fifty  feet  by  ten  was  stripped  to  the 
natural  and  two  postholes  were  found,  approximately  eighteen 
inches  in  diameter  and  penetrating  the  chalky  gravel  to  a depth 
of  about  a foot,  and  a possible  stake  hole  in  an  irregular  hollow. 
Mr.  Willmot,  being  himself  also  occupied  in  excavations  in  York 
and  therefore  unable  to  continue  work  on  the  site,  informed  the 
Ministry  of  Works  and  a further  exploration  was  carried  out. 
During  the  period  1st  July — 23rd  July  1952,  a series  of  squares 
and  trial  trenches  was  opened  to  investigate  the  ditch  nearest  the 
burial.  This  ditch  had  previously  been  found  to  contain  Iron 
Age  pottery.  It  was  hoped  also  that  further  evidence  of  a structure 
in  the  neighbourhood,  suggested  by  the  finding  of  postholes  by 
Mr.  Willmot,  might  come  to  light.  This  hope  proved  abortive  and 
the  main  ditch  and  minor  gullies  became  the  focus  of  exploration. 
Five  ten  foot  squares  were  opened,  in  alignment  with  the  York- 
shire Museum  excavation,  the  two  northernmost  being  subse- 
quently extended  a further  five  feet  and  the  bulk  between  them 
removed.  Smaller  trenches  were  opened  at  various  points  on  the 


line  of  the  main  ditch  and  also  to  investigate  two  minor  ditches 
or  gullies.  (Fig.  1). 

As  no  Roman  pottery  was  found  in  the  main  area  excavated, 
it  seems  likely  that  the  focus  of  occupation  shifted  to  the  southern 
end  of  the  site  with  the  Romanization  of  the  region.  The  bulk  of 
the  finds  was  concentrated  in  the  lower  levels  of  the  ditch,  which 
appears  to  have  been  used  as  a rubbish  dump  at  an  early  period. 
A drop  of  nine  inches  in  the  level  of  the  ditch  from  Trial  Trench 
III  (the  furthest  point  investigated  to  the  south-east)  to  the 
northern  corner  of  the  ditch  suggests  that  originally  there  may 
have  been  an  intention  to  use  it  for  drainage  as  well  as  demarcation 
purposes.  Manganese  staining  of  the  gravel  in  the  lowest  fill 
appears  to  indicate  the  presence  of  water,  but  this  must  have 
been  due  to  seepage  since  there  was  nowhere  any  appreciable 
amount  of  primary  silt  and  therefore  there  cannot  have  been  an 
open  channel  for  many  seasons  unless  the  ditch  had  been  delibera- 
tely kept  clear.  This  possibility  cannot  be  overlooked,  in  view  of 
the  presence  of  a rammed  chalk  lining  to  the  northern  side  of  the 
corner  of  the  ditch,  which  looks  like  deliberate  strengthening  of  a 
weak  point.  Nevertheless,  the  amount  of  occupation  debris 
thrown  into  the  ditch  from  the  inner  side  suggests  that  the  open 
ditch  was  not  an  important  feature  to  the  inhabitants.  Occupation 
of  the  site  did  not  end  with  the  filling  up  of  the  ditch,  as  following 
this  a working  hollow  (Pit  I,  Square  A.l)  was  opened  and  a pit 
(Pit  II)  was  dug  in  the  north  corner  (between  squares  A.l  and 
B.l).  Pit  I (the  working  hollow)  was  clear  of  occupation  material 
and  only  two  minute  sherds  of  indeterminate  shape  were  found 
in  the  fill.  Pit  II  was  filled  with  pebble-free  clay  and  may  indicate 
the  presence  of  a kiln  in  the  neighbourhood,  the  clay  being  either 
in  readiness  for  closing  the  kiln  before  firing  or  as  raw  material 
for  the  pots. 

Besides  the  main  ditch  two  gullies  were  investigated,  Trial 
Trenches  V and  VII  and  Trial  Trench  VI.  The  latter  proved  to 
be  the  end  of  a very  shallow  runnel,  which  since  it  did  not  continue 
in  the  direction  of  the  main  ditch  may  not  have  been  connected 
with  the  site.  As  well  as  pottery  of  a type  similar  to  that  found 
in  the  main  ditch  it  produced  two  fragments  of  later  wares. 

The  Ditch  Sections.  (Fig.  2). 

Trial  Trench  III,  the  main  ditch  section  at  the  south-eastern 
limit  of  investigation,  shows  none  of  the  minor  variations  in  the 
filling  observable  at  the  northern  corner  of  the  ditch,  but  the 
sequence  of  layers  follows  more  or  less  the  same  pattern  through- 
out. The  lowest  layer  at  this  point,  layer  5,  and  the  succeeding 
layer  of  speckled  gravel  contained  the  bulk  of  the  material  found, 
but  there  was  much  less  from  this  area  than  from  the  equivalent 
layers  (5  and  6)  of  Trial  Trench  I.  Above  this  were  two  gravel 
layers  which,  as  in  other  parts  of  the  site,  were  very  similar  in 
texture  and  colour  and  difficult  to  differentiate  during  excavation. 
A very  small  scatter  of  sherds  occurred  in  these  layers,  including 







K - -2 




^Sn=Sn  ay 




Fig.  2. 

Bl.  East 

A I. South 




a rim  from  layer  2.  There  was  no  typological  distinction  between 
the  pottery  from  the  upper  and  lower  layers. 

Trial  Trench  I may  be  taken  as  representing  the  normal 
appearance  of  the  ditch  filling  where  undisturbed  by  later  activity. 
Starting  from  the  base  there  was  a thin  layer  of  silt  followed  by 
a thick  layer  of  the  speckled  gravel  topped  by  a layer  of  black 
earth.  These  two  layers  produced  abundant  occupation  material, 
bone  and  pottery,  lying  in  and  between  them  in  such  a way  as 
to  suggest  that  in  spite  of  the  difference  in  material  the  filling 
process  had  been  a continuous  one.  These  layers  are  the  equivalent 
of  layers  5 and  7 in  Square  B.I.  The  balk  between  these  trenches 
was  removed  at  the  end  of  operations  and  it  was  found  that  the 
occupation  material  and  the  layers  continued  without  a break. 
Above  layer  5 there  was  a marked  change  to  a dry  earthy  gravel, 
layers  4 and  4a,  the  make-up  of  which  was  identical  but  had 
come  in  from  different  sides  of  the  ditch.  Layer  4 was  separated 
from  the  brown  gravel  of  Layer  2 by  a band  of  intermittent  small 
chalk  lumps  which  only  became  noticeable  as  a variation  in  the 
normal  gravel  filling  in  the  side  of  the  section.  It  was,  however, 
present  in  all  sections  of  the  north  corner  of  the  ditch.  Immediately 
under  Layer  4 on  the  surface  of  the  natural  to  the  side  of  the  ditch 
and  ending  at  the  lip  was  a narrow  band,  one  inch  thick,  of  black 
soil.  This  was  only  preserved  in  Trial  Trench  I and  on  the  eastern 
side  of  Square  B.I. 

Square  B.I,  extended  five  feet  to  the  north  to  take  in  the 
turn  of  the  ditch,  shows  an  added  feature  not  present  in  Trial 
Trench  I,  and  that  was  the  presence  of  a layer  of  rammed  chalk 
lying  against  the  outer  side  of  the  ditch  from  lip  to  base.  The 
main  point  of  interest  in  this  area  lies  in  the  presence  of  Pit  II, 
dug  into  the  corner  of  the  ditch  after  the  speckled  gravel  and 
black  earth  had  filled  the  lower  part,  but  before  the  main  bulk 
of  the  brown  gravel  had  begun  to  slip  in.  The  rather  patchy 
spreading  of  the  clay  filling  of  Pit  II  over  the  surrounding  area 
and  the  fact  that  the  pit  extended  under  the  balk  made  exact 
planning  of  the  area  impossible.  There  was  no  occupation 
material,  either  bone  or  pottery,  in  the  clay  filling,  which  was 
tough  and  compact  and  free  of  stones.  After  drawing  the  section 
the  balk  between  Squares  B.I  and  A.I  was  removed. 

In  Square  A.I  also  there  had  been  activity  subsequent  to 
the  initial  filling  of  the  ditch.  A shallow  semi-circular  hollow  had 
been  dug  out  of  the  chalk  gravel  at  the  south  side  of  the  ditch, 
the  upper  edge  of  which  was  cut  by  the  side  of  the  pit  (Pit  I). 
i The  floor  of  the  hollow  was  clean  and  bare  of  all  traces  of  occupa- 
tion. It  was  filled  with  gravel  similar  to  the  two  normal  gravel 
layers  which  capped  it.  On  the  west  side  of  the  pit  (and  still  in 
the  area  of  Square  A.I)  the  ditch  produced  a layer  of  chalk  gravel 
(Layer  5A)  immediately  above  the  two  layers  containing  occupa- 
tion material,  presumably  derived  from  the  original  digging  of 
the  hollow. 


The  Gullies. 

Trial  Trench  VI  proved  to  be  the  termination  of  a very 
shallow  gully  filled  with  brown  clayey  earth.  A certain  amount  of 
pottery  and  a drilled  chalk  fragment  came  from  the  fill.  It  was 
not  possible  to  determine  the  relationship  of  the  gully  to  the 
main  ditch  or  to  the  Iron  Age  site  at  all,  even  though  most  of  the 
pottery  belonged  to  that  period. 

Trial  Trench  VII  revealed  the  continuation  of  a slightly 
deeper  gully  found  at  Trial  Trench  V (to  the  south  of  Mr.  Willmot’s 
trench)  running  in  the  direction  of  the  main  ditch.  The  fill  of 
this  gully  followed  the  general  pattern  of  that  of  the  main  ditch. 
Above  primary  silting  the  ditch  was  filled  by  two  layers,  the 
lower  being  dark  brown  and  producing  occupation  material.  The 
whole  gully,  and  its  surroundings,  was  covered  by  brown  gravel. 

The  Pottery. 

All  the  pottery  with  the  exception  of  three  sherds  (figs. 
11-13)  was  poorly  fired  and  contained  a quantity  of  flint  grit,  the 
fragments  frequently  being  of  considerable  size.  The  body  was 
uniformly  black,  the  exterior  of  the  thinner  walled  pots  mainly 
black  and  that  of  the  coarser  pots  varying  from  a buff-grey  to 
black  with  occasional  patches  of  pinkish  buff.  Owing  to  this  uni- 
formity in  ware  detailed  description  has  been  limited  to  a selected 
number  of  the  illustrated  specimens,  but  examples  of  all  rim  and 
base  forms  found  in  the  excavated  area  are  illustrated  and  their 
positions  in  the  site  listed. 

Similar  pottery  was  also  found  by  Messrs.  C.  and  E.  Grantham 
in  a ditch  running  in  an  east-west  direction  some  fifty  yards  to 
the  south  of  the  area  described  above.  This  ditch  also  produced 
an  appreciable  quantity  of  Roman  pottery.  The  native  ware  is, 
however,  identical  with  that  found  at  the  main  site,  where  virtually 
no  Roman  pottery  was  discovered.  The  type  is  fairly  common  to 
the  East  Riding  of  Yorkshire  and  also  further  north  and  com- 
parison may  be  made  with  pottery  from  Staxton  (see  T.  C.  M. 
Brewster,  “Excavations  at  Newnham’s  Pit,  Staxton,  1947-48” 
Yorks.  Arch.  Journ.,  pt.  154,  1957)  and  from  Stanwick  (see  R.  E. 
M.  Wheeler,  “The  Stanwick  Fortifications,  North  Riding  of 
Yorkshire”,  1954).  No  direct  dating  evidence  was  forthcoming 
from  the  main  Driffield  site,  but  the  lack  of  admixture  of  Roman 
material  at  the  turn  of  the  ditch  together  with  the  occurrence  of 
similar  pottery  in  association  with  Roman  wares  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  suggested  an  immediately  pre-Roman  date  for  the  main 
site,  the  centre  of  occupation  shifting  to  the  south  soon  after  the 
Romanization  of  the  region.  This  means  a date  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  first  century  A.D.  which  agrees  in  principle  with  the  more 
positive  dating  evidence  from  other  sites  at  which  this  ware  has 
been  found. 

Fig.  3,  1.  Squared  rim,  everted  coarse  gritty  ware,  grits  showing 
extensively  on  outer  and  inner  surfaces. 

From  Layer  7,  balk  between  B.J,  and  T.T.I, 

►— r-*-r 

+— I T-* 

Fig.  3. 

Driffield  Iron  Age  Pottery  (£). 

Fig.  4.  Driffield  Iron  Age  Pottery  (£) 



Fig.  3,  2. 

Fig.  4,  4. 










Squared  rim,  everted,  slightly  constricted  neck,  coarse 
gritty  ware,  surface  smoothed  inside  and  out,  but  not  grit  free. 

From  balk  between  A. I.  and  B.I.  below  clay. 

Squared  rim,  everted,  coarse  gritty  ware,  surface  smoothed 
inside  and  out,  but  not  grit  free. 

From  Layer  7,  balk  between  B.I.  and  T.T.I. 

Flollowed  rim  with  irregular  finger  nail  impressions  on 
exterior,  constricted  neck  with  trace  of  diagonal  scoring 
below,  coarse  gritty  ware,  surface  smoothed  inside  and  out, 
but  large  grits  showing  on  interior  surface  and  smaller  grits 
on  outer. 

From  Layer  2,  T.T.VI. 

Rounded  rim  with  faint  cable  pattern,  coarse  gritty  ware, 
surface  smoothed  inside  and  out  but  with  some  grit  showing. 

From  Layer  8,  balk  between  B.I.  and  T.T.I. 

Rim  of  thin  walled  bowl,  coarse  gritty  ware,  surface  well 
smoothed  inside  and  out. 

From  Layer  2,  B.II. 

Squared  narrow  rim,  slightly  everted,  constricted  neck,  wall 
of  pot  thickened  below  neck,  coarse  gritty  ware,  surface 
smoothed  inside  and  out  and  free  of  large  grits. 

From  Layer  2,  T.T.II. 

Squared  everted  rim  of  thin  walled  bowl,  ware  slightly  less 
gritty  than  normal  but  equally  badly  fired. 

From  Layer  5,  balk  between  B.I.  and  T.T.I. 

Section  of  low  walled  platter,  rim  to  base.  Rim  roughly 
grooved,  coarse  gritty  ware,  body  black,  surface  pink  and 
smoothed  inside  and  out,  but  showing  large  grits  on  the 

From  Layer  3,  T.T.V. 

Section  of  small  irregular  pot,  possibly  a waster,  coarse  ware, 
less  gritty  than  usual  and  harder. 

From  Layer  7,  balk  between  B.I.  and  T.T.I. 

Cordoned  neck  sherd,  ware  less  gritty  than  usual,  the  grits 
much  smaller,  the  surface  smooth,  hard  and  grit  free 
inside  and  out,  black.  Possibly  Romano-British. 

From  Layer  3,  T.T.V. 

Rolled  rim  and  straight  neck  of  thin-walled  jar,  fine  grey 
ware.  Roman. 

From  Layer  2,  T.T.VI. 

Glazed  sherd,  greenish  buff,  with  trace  of  cordon,  body  and 
interior  red.  Medieval. 

From  Layer  2,  T.T.VI. 

Fig.  5,  14-16. 





Rims  from  Layer  2,  T.T.VI. 
Rims  from  Layer  3,  T.T.V. 
Rim  from  Layer  3,  T.T.IV. 
Rim  from  Layer  2,  T.T.IV. 
Rim  from  Layer  7,  A. I. 

Rim  from  Layer  2,  B.I. 

Rim  from  Layer  4,  B.I. 

Fig.  6,  25  & 26. 
27  & 28. 



Rims  from  Layer  5,  B.I. 

Rims  from  Layer  8,  B.I. 

Rims  from  Layer  8,  balk  between  B.I.  and  T.T.I. 
Rim  from  Layer  2,  T.T.I. 

Base  from  Layer  2,  T.T.VII. 

Fig.  7,  34  & 35. 
36  & 37. 
38  & 39. 

Bases  from  Layer  2,  T.T.VI. 
Bases  from  Layer  3,  T.T.V. 
Bases  from  Layer  7,  A. I. 
Base  from  Layer  8,  B.I, 

Fig.  6.  Driffield  Iron  Age  Pottery  (£) 

Fig.  8.  Driffield  Bone  and  Stone  objects  (£) 



Other  Finds. 

Animal  Remains.  The  filling  of  the  ditch  produced  a quantity  of 
broken  bone,  mostly  fragmentary  and  in  very  poor  condition.  Most  of  the 
material  came  from  the  lower  levels  of  the  main  ditch  in  the  area  of  Trial 
Trench  I and  Square  B.I.  and  included  evidence  of  the  presence  at  the  site 
of  dog,  deer,  horse,  pig,  sheep  or  goat  and  bos.  A fragmentary  skull  of 
bos  longifrons  came  from  Layer  3,  Trial  Trench  V. 

Drilled  chalk  fragment  (fig.  8,  41).  The  fragment  as  found  is  probably 
incomplete.  No  other  fragment  was  found.  The  marks  of  drilling  are  quite 
visible  throughout  the  perforation  except  at  the  top,  where  there  is  a 
narrow  transverse  smooth  line,  possibly  as  a result  of  suspension.  The  object 
may  have  been  a loom  weight  or  possibly  a weight  for  a net  protecting  the 
roof  of  a hut.  Owing  to  its  position  in  the  fill  of  the  shallow  gully  T.T.VI. 
it  is  not  possible  to  date  it  definitely  to  the  Iron  Age  Occupation. 

Quern  Fragment  (fig.  8,  42).  Fragment  of  rotary  quern  of  rhyolite.  Un- 
fortunately the  quern  is  too  fragmentary  to  determine  the  original  height 
or  the  angle  of  the  grinding  surface  with  any  certainty,  and  there  is  no  trace 
of  the  handlehole.  The  fragment  came  from  the  speckled  gravel  (Layer  7) 
Square  A. I.  and  belongs  to  the  Iron  Age  occupation. 

Bone  Handle,  (fig.  8,  43).  Made  from  the  metatarsal  of  bos;  some  trace 
of  polishing  remains.  There  is  no  trace  remaining  of  any  metal  blade  or 
other  attachment.  From  the  speckled  gravel  (Layer  7)  in  Square  B.I. 
below  the  clay  spread  of  Pit  II. 



at  Dalton,  near  Huddersfield 

By  Frank  Atkinson,  B.Sc.,  F.M.A. 

Dives  House  Barn  adjoined  Dives  House  at  Dalton,  near 
Huddersfield.  It  was  demolished  in  October  1957.  Little  appears 
to  be  known  of  either  of  these  buildings;  Thomas  Dives  of  Dalton 
is  mentioned  as  a juror  in  the  Court  Rolls  of  the  Manor  of  Wake- 
field in  1314-15  and  in  the  following  year  his  name  occurs  as  a 
witness  to  a deed  relating  to  land  in  Dalton.1 

The  barn  has  previously  been  described  as  a typical  “Nave- 
and-aisles”  barn  “with  six  inner  massive  king-post  trusses”,2  but 
when  first  observed  by  the  writer  at  a time  when  the  slates  had 
just  been  removed  it  was  noted  that  part  of  the  roof  structure 
was  of  entirely  different  structure  to  that  usually  referred  to  as 
'Highland’;  this  was  better  described  as  a late  Mediaeval  barn  of 
the  ‘Lowland’  tradition. 

Since  little  comparative  material  has  been  published  on 
roof-types,  it  may  be  useful  at  this  stage  to  distinguish  the  roof 
of  this  barn  from  the  type  of  roof  usually  found  in  the  West 
Riding.  The  so-called  “Highland”  or  North-western  roof  is 
built  up  on  a series  of  framed  trusses,  each  comprising  a horizontal 
tie-beam  supporting  a vertical  king  post  and  two  large  principal 
rafters  running  from  tie-beam  to  king  post.  This  latter  supports 
the  ridge-piece  and  one  or  more  purlins  on  each  roof-slope  are 
set  upon  the  principal  rafters.  The  common  rafters  are  then 
supported  by  ridge-piece  and  purlins.  This  type  of  roof  is  found 
in  the  West  Riding.  Regional  variations  (frequently  without  the 
king  post)  are  found  in  Westmorland,3  Wales,4  Monmouthshire,5 

The  “Lowland”  or  South-eastern  roof  structure  comprises 
a series  of  identical  pairs  of  “trussed  rafters”,  i.e.  common  rafters 
halved  together  at  their  apex,  and  strengthened  by  a collar 
halved  or  tenoned  into  each  rafter.  In  its  best  known  form  this 
roof  is  completed  by  a central  ‘collar  purlin’,  which  runs  along 
under  the  series  of  collars.  This  collar  purlin  is  supported  by  a 
series  of  ‘King-posts’  (frequently  moulded  and  chamfered)6 

1 Tolson,  L.,  History  of  the  Church  and  Annals  of  the  Parish  of  Kirk- 
heaton.  Privately  published,  1929,  p.  155,  6. 

2 Walton,  }.,  Early  Timbered  Buildings  of  the  Huddersfield  District. 
Huddersfield  Museum,  1955. 

3 Royal  Commission  on  Historical  Monuments.  Vol.  for  Westmorland 


4 Peate,  I.  C.,  The  Welsh  House  1946. 

5 Fox,  Sir  Cyril  and  Lord  Raglan.  Monmouthshire  Houses  1951. 

6 The  term  ‘crown  post’  has  been  suggested  by  Professor  R.  A. 

Truss  No. 3 (looking  North) 

inset  : First,  northern,  pair  of  rafters  (looking  South) 

^shewing  two  collars) 

Truss  No. 4 

(looking  North) 

DIVES  HOUSE  BARN , Dalton,  Huddersfield 

_ _____ >7 



standing  on  tie  beams.  There  is  no  ridge-piece  or  principal  rafter. 
This  type  of  roof  is  found  in  Kent  and  Essex1  etc.,  and  a derivative 
of  this  type  is  widely  found  in  the  Midlands  (esp.  Warwickshire) 
and  apparently  in  the  Vale  of  York.2  It  should  be  noted  that 
although  the  term  “king-post”  is  used  in  both  roof  types,  these 
two  structures  are  entirely  different  in  function.  In  the  Dives 
House  Barn  roof  the  king  post  and  collar  purlin  were  absent. 

The  barn  as  it  stood  in  October  1957  was  7 bays  long  with 
a narrow  aisle  along  most  of  the  western  side  and  a cow-house 
and  stable  along  the  eastern.  At  its  southern  end  stood  Dives 
House,  a timber-framed  building  with  17th  century  additions. 
Unfortunately  this  house  was  largely  demolished  when  visited  by 
the  writer  and  it  was  not  possible  to  make  a satisfactory  survey. 

The  barn  was  built  in  at  least  three  stages.  In  the  centre 
was  the  original  barn  of  three  bays  (Trusses  3,  4,  5.  6)3  and  this 
was  subsequently  extended  at  each  end  by  two  bays,  making  a 
total  of  seven  bays,  probably  in  the  mid  to  late  17th  century. 
The  aisle  on  the  western  side  was  partly  continued  at  the  same 
time  (Trusses  1 and  2).  At  a third  period  the  stable  and  cow- 
house were  added  along  the  eastern  side. 

The  Late  Mediaeval  Barn. 

This  barn  was  three  bays  long,  with  an  aisle  down  the 
western  side  only.  The  two  outer  bays  were  each  16  feet  long 
and  the  centre  bay  was  13  feet  long;  the  width  of  each  bay  was 
19  feet,  with  an  additional  5 feet  formed  by  the  aisle.  The  roof 
was  hipped  at  each  end  and  the  outer  walls  were  studded.  It  would 
seem  that  there  was  a large  pair  of  doors  at  the  east  side  of  the 
central  bay,  but  any  evidence  there  may  have  been  at  the  corres- 
ponding point  on  the  western  aisle  had  been  destroyed. 

The  timber  construction  was  sound  and  well-made  and  the 
posts  set  up  on  low  stone  footings.  Many  of  these  joints  were 
numbered,  and  the  most  striking  series  of  carpenters’  marks — 
those  of  the  posts — are  shown  on  the  accompanying  diagram.4 

The  evidence  upon  which  the  above  description  is  based 
will  now  be  discussed: 

Bays.  The  carpenters’  marks  I to  IIII  were  so  disposed  as 
to  suggest  that  the  barn  never  exceeded  4 trusses,  and  as  a three- 
bay  building  with  the  north  and  south  bays  slightly  larger  than 

1 R.C.H.M.  Vol.  for  Essex. 

2 Private  communication  from  J.  T.  Smith. 

3 For  ease  of  reference  the  trusses  of  the  barn,  as  standing  in  1947, 
were  numbered  1 to  7,  starting  at  the  northern  end. 

4 Each  pair  of  posts  was  numbered  consecutively  from  south  to  north 
I to  IIII,  and  the  east  posts  of  each  pair  distinguished  by  an  added  diagonal 
stroke.  In  every  case  the  number  was  marked  on  the  ‘face’  side  (i.e.  the  side 
from  which  the  pegs  were  driven),  and  on  the  opposite  face  was  a triangular 
symbol  (only  one  such  symbol  to  each  pair  of  posts).  The  relative  positions 
of  all  these  marks  are  shown  in  the  diagram;  in  every  case  the  mark  was 
cut  into  the  post  somewhere  near  the  top.  See  also  the  drawings  of  Trusses 
3 and  4. 


the  central  one,  the  whole  was  symmetrical.  The  additional 
trusses  at  each  end  were  of  inferior  workmanship;  the  tie-beams 
of  trusses  3 and  6 showed  mortices  on  their  undersides  to  take 
studding,  and  the  posts  had  mortices  about  6 feet  from  the  ground 
to  take  rails;  the  two  internal  trusses  (nos.  4 and  5)  had  no  such 
mortices.  The  structure  of  the  roof  held  the  final  proof  and  is 
dealt  with  below. 

Aisles.  Only  the  aisle  on  the  west  was  original,  that  on  the 
east  being  much  later  (probably  18th  century).  The  aisle  tie- 
beams,  posts  and  wall-plates  were  all  properly  tenoned  to  one 
another  and  to  the  principal  posts  and  bore  the  same  carpenters’ 
numbers  as  the  main  trusses.  An  additional  curved  brace  from 
aisle  tie-beam  to  principal  post  existed  on  Trusses  3 and  6 (see 
drawing):  the  two  outer  trusses. 

On  the  eastern  side  there  were  no  mortices  on  the  outer 
faces  of  the  principal  posts  apart  from  rough  notches  to  take 
the  later  stable  and  cow-house,  proving  that  an  eastern  aisle 
never  existed.  The  studding  of  the  walls  supports  this  and  is 
dealt  with  below. 

Walls.  The  underside  of  the  aisle  wall-plate  had  a series 
of  small  mortices  demonstrating  that  this  wall  was  studded. 
The  western  wall  plate  (or  arcade  plate)  was  free  from  any  such 
mortices,  but  that  on  the  eastern  side  was  morticed.  The  two 
outer  tie-beams  (Trusses  3 and  6)  were  also  morticed  for  studding 
(see  Plate  V). 

Rails  to  support  the  studding  were  seen  to  have  been  fitted 
across  Trusses  3 and  6 about  6 feet  from  the  ground,  and  similar 
rails  ran  along  the  eastern  wall  between  posts  3 and  4,  and  posts 
5 and  6.  Between  posts  4 and  5 the  rail  was  about  10  feet  from  the 
ground,  suggesting  that  a large  pair  of  doors  was  hung  below  it. 

The  aisle  tie-beams  did  not  have  mortices  on  their  under- 
side and  the  aisle  posts  were  too  decayed  to  provide  useful  evidence, 
or  were  missing. 

The  external  wall  of  the  aisle  was  studded,  as  shown  by  the 
aisle  wall-plate,  but  proof  is  not  so  clear  for  the  lower  half  of  the 
two  gables  and  the  eastern  wall.  There  was  no  evidence  of 
mortices  in  the  principal  posts  for  a ground  sill  or  a lower  rail 
and  there  are  therefore  three  possibilities  for  the  infilling  of  the 
three  outer  walls  below  the  rail: 

(a)  Open,  without  any  infilling. 

(b)  Further  studding,  into  a ground  sill  which  was  not 
fastened  to  the  posts  at  either  end. 

(c)  Stone  walling. 

Each  end  of  the  aisle  was  presumably  treated  in  the  same 
way  as  each  gable,  and  as  the  aisle  tie-beam  was  free  of  mortices 
on  its  underside  this  suggests  that  the  missing  rail  across  the 
gable  (about  the  same  height)  was  likewise.  Therefore  possibility 
(b)  seems  most  unlikely,  and  the  barn  was  either  open  from 

Plate  I.  From  the  S.E 

Plate  II. 

Roof  looking  N.,  showing  double  collars.  Truss  6 overhead. 

Plate  III.  Plate  IV. 

Roof,  looking  N.  Truss  5 nearest  camera.  Roof  timbers  looking  S.E.,  showing  double  collars.  Note  chamfered  edge  of 

upper  collar,  with  one  peg-hole  visible. 



i ground  level  to  a height  of  six  feet  (which  seems  unlikely  after  all 
I the  care  expended  on  the  walls  and  roof)  or  a stone  wall  was 
■ built  to  that  height.  There  are  other  local  buildings  standing 
\ which  suggest  that  the  latter  may  have  been  the  case.1 

Doors.  As  mentioned  above,  a pair  of  large  doors  probably 
hung  on  the  centre  of  the  eastern  wall.  As  the  aisle  wall-plate 
on  the  opposing  wall  had  been  raised  to  accommodate  a later 
pair  of  doors  it  is  not  possible  to  deduce  whether  doors  originally 
existed  there,  but  from  comparison  with  other  barns  it  is  likely 
that  a small  single  door  was  provided  for  access  and  winnowing. 

Roof.  This  was  the  most  interesting  feature  of  the  building 
and  final  proof  of  the  size  of  the  original  barn.  It  was  constructed 
of  pairs  of  common  rafters,  halved  and  pegged  at  the  apex,  with 
a collar  also  halved  and  pegged.  Sixteen  such  pairs  remained  and 
of  these  the  most  northerly  and  southerly  pairs  each  had  an 
additional  upper  collar  bearing  three  pegs  (see  drawing  and 
Plates  II  and  IV).  No  ridge-piece,  purlins  or  principal  rafters 
were  used  on  this  original  roof  and  where  these  did  exist  in  1957 
they  were  obviously  rough  insertions  of  later  date.  In  most 
cases  the  struts  from  tie-beams  to  these  purlins  were  not  even 
pegged  (see  Plate  III). 

The  upper  surface  of  the  tie-beams  on  Trusses  3 and  6 had 
a series  of  wide  notches  (see  drawing  and  Plate  VI).  These  notches 
would  take  the  rafters  of  the  end  hipped  roof,  and  the  upper 
collars  on  the  north  and  south  pairs  of  rafters  would  bear  the 
upper  ends  of  such  rafters.  Doubtless  these  end  rafters  were 
removed  when  the  barn  and  its  roof  were  extended  in  the  17th 

Notes.  Two  interesting  points  remain  to  be  recorded,  (i) 
The  pitch  of  the  two  end  roofs  would  not  be  identical,  that  to 
the  south  being  slightly  steeper,  as  the  distance  from  the  last 
pair  of  rafters  to  the  tie-beam  was  only  5 ft.  6 ins.  Whereas  to 
the  north  the  distance  was  6 ft.  6 ins.  (ii)  The  halving  of  the 
pairs  of  rafters  showed  some  variation,  as  did  the  positioning  of  the 
collar  joints.  This  is  shown  on  the  elevation.  There  is  no  obvious 
reason  for  this,  but  the  pattern  appeared  too  regular  to  be  entirely 
fortuitous.  Possibly  it  was  thought  by  so  doing  to  strengthen  the 

Additions  and  alterations  to  the  Mediaeval  Barn. 

At  some  time  after  the  above-described  three-bay  barn  was 
constructed  and  also  after  the  west  wing  of  Dives  House  was 
constructed  or  enlarged,  the  barn  was  extended  to  the  south  b\f 
a further  two  bays.  This  is  clearly  shown  on  the  plan.  The  west 
wing  of  Dives  House  was  probably  built  in  the  first  half  of  the 

1 For  example,  an  inner  wall  at  Shibden  Hall,  Halifax,  is  built  in  stone 
to  a height  of  4 ft.  5 ins.  and  on  this  rests  a sill  bearing  studding.  This 
sill  is  morticed  into  the  posts  which  are  built  on  low  stone  footings  con- 
temporary with  the  wall.  The  studding  and  plaster  filling  is  covered  by  a 
late  16th  century  decorative  painting. 


17th  century  and  the  workmanship  and  characteristics  of  the 
added  barn  bays  suggests  that  they  date  from  the  late  17th 
century  at  the  very  earliest. 

Two  bays  were  also  added  at  the  northern  end  of  the  barn 
and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  were  not  constructed 
at  the  same  time.  In  the  course  of  these  extensions  the  hipped 
gable  roofs  would  be  removed  and  the  ridges  and  purlins  of  the 
extensions  were  projected  slightly  to  contact  the  pairs  of  rafters 
at  each  end.  Two  purlins  were  also  inserted  between  Trusses 
4 and  5. 

At  this  time  the  aisle  was  extended  to  the  north,  and  the 
height  of  the  western  aisle  wall  raised  about  a foot  by  the  addition 
of  a beam  rested  on  top  of  the  original  aisle  wall-plate  and  pegged 
to  it.  This  apparently  was  done  to  provide  a taller  doorway  to 
the  west.  The  lower,  original,  wall-plate  was  cut  away  at  this 
point  and  the  added  beam  continued  over.  To  this  were  pegged 
rather  crude  ‘ears’  (see  Plate  VII)  to  accommodate  a pair  of 
harr-hung  doors.  All  the  outer  walls  were  built  of  stone,  including 
replacement  of  the  studded  western  aisle  wall. 

The  cow-house  and  stall  were  still  later  additions.  Their 
construction  was  decidedly  poor  and  much  re-used  timber  was 


Dives  House  barn  was  originally  built  in  the  late  15th  or 
early  16th  century,  of  three  bays  with  timber  construction  and 
walls  mostly  studded  but  probably  partly  stone-built.  There  was 
a large  pair  of  doors  to  the  east.  Its  roof  was  hipped,  the  con- 
struction being  of  the  so-called  ‘Lowland’  type  of  trussed  rafters 
but  without  collar  purlin  and  king-posts.  Additions  were  made 
in  the  17th  and  18th  centuries. 

Plate  V.  Plate  VI. 

Underside  of  tie-beam  of  Truss  3,  showing  mortices  Upper  surface  of  tie-beam  of  truss  3,  showing  wedge-shaped  notches  to 

for  end-wall  studding.  take  rafters.  Upright  posts  and  principal  rafters  are  later  insertions. 

Plate  VII. 

‘Ear’  to  take  harr-hung  door  on  W.  wall  (2nd  period). 




By  Sir  Charles  Clay,  C.B.,  F.B.A. 

I There  are  three  points  which  require  consideration: 

(a)  the  marriages  of  Erneburga  de  Burton; 

(b)  whether  Robert  the  crusader  was  the  son  of  Ulbert  the 
constable  or  whether  there  was  another  Robert  of  an 
intervening  generation; 

and  (c)  the  connexion  with  the  family  of  Alost. 

As  to  (a)  the  charter  of  Robert  the  constable  restoring  to 
t Thomas  and  Ralph  de  Alost,  his  brothers,  land  in  Fraisthorpe, 

( to  which  full  reference  will  be  given  below,  states  that  the  land 
had  been  acquired  by  Gilbert  de  Alost,  their  father,  with  Robert’s 
concurrence.  This  shows  that  Robert  and  Gilbert  were  alive  at 
the  same  time,  and  makes  it  impossible  that  Erneburga  de  Burton, 
wife  of  Ulbert  the  constable,  was  the  widow  of  Gilbert  de  Alost 
when  she  married  Ulbert.1  It  will  be  shown  below  that  Thomas 
and  Ralph  de  Alost  were  Robert’s  half-brothers;  and  it  can  be 
deduced  that  Robert’s  mother  Erneburga  married  Gilbert  de 
Alost,  their  father,  as  her  second  husband. 

As  to  ( b ) the  evidence  given  below  will  show  that  the  birth 
of  Robert  the  crusader,  senex  et  plenus  dierum  by  1190,  can  be 
placed  as  not  later  than  c.  1130-35.  That  would  mean  that,  if 
there  was  an  intervening  Robert,2  the  birth  of  Ulbert  the  con- 
stable could  not  have  been  later  than  the  period  1090-95.  Ulbert 
was  living  at  least  as  late  as  c.  1147;  and,  if  there  had  been  an 
intervening  Robert,  Erneburga  would  have  given  birth  to  him 
not  later  than  c.  1110-15  and  then  to  six  more  children  after  her 
second  marriage  to  Gilbert  de  Alost  later  than  c.  1147.  Moreover, 
further  evidence  given  below  shows  that  Thomas  de  Alost,  Gilbert’s 
son,  was  the  uncle  of  Robert  son  of  William,  the  nephew  and 
successor  of  Robert  the  crusader;  and  this  proves  that  the 
crusader  and  Thomas  de  Alost  were  of  the  same  generation. 

As  to  (c)  it  was  supposed  by  Poulson3  that  the  connexion 
was  due  to  the  marriage  of  William  the  brother  of  Robert  the 
crusader  to  Julian  sister  of  Thomas  de  Alost;  but  he  gave  no 
evidence,  and  indeed  there  appears  to  be  no  evidence  of  her 

1 So  given  by  Poulson,  Holderness,  ii,  225,  and  followed  in  the  account 
of  Burton  Constable  in  Place-Names  of  E.R.  Yorks.,  Eng.  Place-Name  Soc., 
p.  61.  But  A.  S.  Ellis  in  Y.A.J.,  iv,  233  clearly  stated  that  Gilbert  married 
Ulbert’s  widow. 

2 So  given  by  Poulson,  op.  cit.,  ii,  228.  and  followed  in  Dugdale’s 
Visitation  of  Yorks.,  ed.  J.  W.  Clay,  ii,  301. 

3 Op.  cit.,  p.  228, 



existence.  Moreover,  if  such  were  the  fact,  Robert  the  crusader 
could  not  have  described  Thomas  as  his  brother.1 2  The  true 
solution,  that  Robert  the  crusader  and  his  brother  William  were 
the  half-brothers  of  Thomas  de  Alost,  is  due  to  a note  prepared 
by  the  late  Lewis  Loyd  and  printed  in  the  edition  of  Sir  Christopher 
Hatton  s Book  of  Seals,  in  which  Robert  the  constable’s  Fraisthorpe 
charter  is  included  (no.  520).  He  shows  that  in  view  of  a charter 
of  Robert  son  of  William  the  constable  (the  crusader’s  nephew 
and  successor)  confirming  to  Bridlington  priory  the  gifts  made  by 
Thomas  de  Alost  his  patruusf  Gilbert  de  Alost  (Thomas’s  father) 
must  have  married  the  mother  of  Robert  the  constable  (the 
crusader),  and  Thomas  and  Ralph  his  brother  must  have  been 
the  latter’s  brothers  of  the  half-blood. 


Ulbert  the  Constable.  He  witnessed  a charter  of  Ralph 
de  Goxhill  giving  land  in  Goxhill,  co.  Lincoln,  to  Bridlington 
priory,3  and  one  of  William  count  of  Aumale  confirming  this  and 
other  gifts.4  Six  of  the  seven  witnesses  to  the  former  are  among 
those  who  witnessed  the  latter;  and  the  two  charters  were  pre- 
sumably issued  on  the  same  occasion.  Farrer  assigned  their 
date  as  c.  1147-1168,  with  a suggestion  that  the  count’s  charter, 
in  view  of  one  of  the  witnesses,  was  issued  nearer  the  former 
date.  This  witness  and  another,  Stephen  the  butler,  witnessed  a 
charter  of  the  count  to  St.  Peter’s  hospital,  York,  1138-42;5  and 
Stephen,  with  his  sons,  and  another  witness  occur  in  1149-50.6 

Ulbert  the  constable  with  his  brothers  William  and  Richard 
witnessed  a charter  of  William  count  of  Aumale  to  Simon  de 
Skeffling.7  The  first  witness  was  living  in  the  time  of  count 
Stephen,8  who  died  c.  1127,  and  two  others  witnessed  charters 
c.  1 150.9 

As  Robert  the  constable  (Ulbert’s  son)  witnessed  a charter 
of  the  count,  11 50-53, 10  it  is  probable  that  Ulbert  had  died  by 
1153  at  the  latest. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Ulbert  held  the  office  of  con- 
stable under  William  le  Gros,  count  of  Aumale  and  lord  of  the 
honour  of  Holderness.  In  the  absence  of  documentary  evidence 
it  is  uncertain  whether  the  interest  in  Halsham,  held  by  his 
descendants,  was  held  by  him  in  his  own  right  or  by  reason  of 
his  marriage.  At  the  Domesday  survey  7 carucates  and  2f  bovates 
in  Halsham  and  2 carucates  and  6 bovates  in  Tharlesthorpe 
formed  two  of  the  berewicks  of  the  manor  of  Patrington,  held  in 

1 Nor  could  he  have  described  him  ‘as  his  brother,  i.e.  brother-in-law', 
as  was  Farrer’s  opinion  in  E.Y.C.,  ii,  p.  154,  where  by  a slip  he  supposed 
that  he  was  Robert  the  constable  ‘of  Flamborough’ — a different  family. 

2 Bridlington  Chartulary , p.  201,  cited  below. 

3 E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1339.  4 Ibid.,  no.  1340. 

5 Ibid.,  no.  1313.  6 Ibid.,  no.  1379. 

7 Ibid.,  no.  1399.  8 Ibid.,  no.  1318. 

9 Ibid.,  nos.  1379-80.  10  Ibid.,  no.  1381. 



chief  by  the  archbishop  of  York;1  and  a further  6 bovates  in 
Halsham  formed  a berewick  of  the  manor  of  Ottringham,  held  in 
chief  by  Drew  de  Beuvriere,  then  lord  of  Holderness.2  With 
regard  to  other  land  which  descended  in  the  Constable  family, 
5 carucates  in  ‘Santriburtone’  (the  later  Burton  Constable), 
where  one  unnamed  knight  had  an  under-tenancy,  and  3 carucates 
in  West  Newton  were  held  of  the  archbishop  of  York;3  and  in 
Fraisthorpe,  out  of  a total  of  9 carucates,  7 carucates  were 
held  by  the  count  of  Mortain  and  one  each  by  the  king  and  Hugh 
son  of  Baldric.4  After  the  flight  of  Drew  de  Beuvriere  his  lands 
in  Holderness  were  given  to  Odo  count  of  Champagne,  and  so 
descended  to  the  counts  of  Aumale;  and  at  some  subsequent 
date  the  archbishop  of  York  enfeoffed  them  of  some  of  these 
lands,  including  Halsham  and  Burton  Constable.5  Thus  it  was 
recorded  in  1284-85  that  Aveline  formerly  countess  of  Aumale 
had  held  2 knights’  fees  of  the  archbishop  of  York  in  Burton 
Constable,  Newton  Constable  [West  Newton],  West  and  East 
Halsham  and  Tharlesthorpe,  and  that  they  had  passed  into  the 
king’s  hand  in  consequence  of  her  death.6  At  Fraisthorpe  in  the 
same  period,  where  the  number  of  carucates  and  their  division 
between  three  tenancies  in  chief  precisely  reflect  the  Domesday 
conditions,  7 carucates  were  held  of  the  Meinil  fee  under  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,7  one  carucate  of  the  Vescy  fee  under 
Mowbray,  and  one  by  the  prior  of  Bridlington  of  the  Gant  fee.8 
The  details  given  below  will  show  that  the  interest  in  Fraisthorpe 
held  by  the  Constable  family  was  derived  from  Erneburga  de 

Described  as  Erenburch9  de  Burtona,  wife  of  Ulbert  the 
constable,  she  gave  to  Swine  priory  a carucate  of  land  in  Frais- 

1 V.C.H.  Yorks.,  ii,  pp.  209-10,  325. 

2 Ibid.,  pp.  266,  326.  His  tenant  at  Halsham  was  Gumar,  of  whom 
nothing  further  is  known. 

3 Ibid.,  pp.  216,  325. 

4 Ibid.,  pp.  226,  277,  287,  322. 

5 In  1166  William  count  of  Aumale  held  3 k.f.  of  the  abp  of  York 
{Liber  Niger,  ed.  Hearne,  i.  304). 

6 Feudal  Aids,  vi,  42.  At  the  inq.  taken  10  April  1294  after  the  death 
of  Simon  the  constable  it  was  recorded  that  he  held  land  in  these  places 
in  fee  of  the  king  [Yorks.  Inq.,  ii,  no.  126). 

7 The  origin  of  this  and  other  land  was  due  to  a charter  of  William 
Paynel  giving  to  the  abp  of  Canterbury  the  fee  of  7 knights  which  Robert 
de  Meinil  III  was  holding  of  him,  1196-98  ( E.Y.C. , vi,  no.  88);  and  for  the 
succession  of  the  Paynel  family  to  several  of  the  Domesday  holdings  of  the 
count  of  Mortain  see  ibid.,  pp.  185-7. 

8 Feudal  Aids,  vi,  32. 

9 Her  parentage  is  unknown;  but  it  is  not  unlikely  that  she  was  the 
representative  of  the  unnamed  knight  of  the  abp  of  York  at  ‘Santriburtone’ 
in  1086  (see  above).  There  are  parallels  to  her  name  in  Erenburgis  wife  of 
Fulk  of  Anjou  and  paternal  grandmother  of  king  Henry  II  {Cal.  Docs. 
France,  no.  1405);  Eremburgis  the  wife  of  a benefactor  of  the  abbey  of 
Jumieges  c.  1128  (Vernier,  Chartes  de  V Abb  aye  de  Jumieges,  i,  148);  and 
Erneburga  wife  of  Robert  de  Stuteville  II,  captured  shortly  before  the 
battle  of  Tinchebrai  in  1106  (. E.Y.C. , ix,  p.  2). 



thorpe  which  was  of  her  own  patrimony  and  inheritance.1  It  is 
likely  that  as  the  ‘Santriburtone’  of  Domesday  was  known  as 
Erneburgh  Burton2  before  it  became  known  as  Burton  Constable, 
she  brought  that  place  also  to  Ulbert  in  marriage. 

Farrer  assigned  the  date  of  her  charter  to  Swine  priory  as 
1155-70;  but  over  twenty  witnesses  occur  in  the  list  of  those  who 
witnessed  Robert  the  constable’s  charter  to  Thomas  and  Ralph 
de  Alost,3  to  which  he  assigned  the  date  1185-95  (though  these 
limits  may  be  too  late).  As  Erneburga’s  charter  was  witnessed  by 
Thomas  de  Alost  and  Stephen  and  John  his  brothers  (her  sons 
by  her  second  marriage)  a date  earlier  than  1170  is  unlikely. 
The  gift  of  10  bovates  of  land  and  8 tofts  in  Fraisthorpe  made 
by  Erneburga  and  confirmed  by  Robert  the  constable  her  son  is 
mentioned  in  a charter  of  the  prioress  of  Swine  in  the  thirteenth 

Erneburga  married  as  her  second  husband  Gilbert  de  Alost, 
by  whom  she  had  issue  Thomas  de  Alost  and  four  other  sons,  and 
a daughter  Beatrice  who  married  Henry  de  Cayton  and  whose 
daughter  Erneburga  married  Oliver  de  Croom.5  These  children 
must  have  been  considerably  younger  than  her  sons  by  her  first 
husband;  but  the  chronological  difficulty  is  not  insuperable. 

By  Erneburga  Ulbert  the  constable  had  two  sons  Robert, 
his  successor;  and  William,  the  father  of  Robert  the  younger. 

Robert  the  Constable  I.6  He  was  the  elder  son  of  Ulbert 
the  constable  by  Erneburga  de  Burton,  and  heir  both  to  his 
father  and  mother.  As  he  witnessed  a charter  of  William  count 
of  Aumale  in  favour  of  Meaux  abbey,  11 50-53, 7 and  as  it  is  stated 
in  the  Meaux  Chronicle8  that  he  was  senex  et  plenus  dierum  when 
as  one  of  the  knights  of  the  count  of  Aumale  he  started  with 
king  Richard  I on  crusade,  his  birth  can  be  placed  as  not  later 
than  c.  1130-35. 

With  William  his  brother  he  witnessed  a charter  of  William 
count  of  Aumale,  11 70-75 ;9  and  he  witnessed  other  charters  of 
the  same,  who  died  in  1179,  of  varying  dates,10  and  two  of  William 
de  Mandeville,  earl  of  Essex  and  lord  of  Holderness,  1179-89.11 
He  was  the  donor  of  land  and  rents  in  Halsham  and  Burton 
Constable  ( Erneburgh  Burton ) to  Thornton  abbey,  co.  Lincoln.12 

1 E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1361. 

2 So  named  in  ibid.,  no.  1312,  a confirmation  of  king  Richard  I to 
Thornton  abbey. 

3 See  below.  • 4 Bridlington  Chartulary,  p.  201. 

5 See  the  Alost  descent  given  below. 

6 There  is  no  documentary  evidence  available  to  show  that  he  held 

the  office  of  constable  under  any  of  the  lords  of  Holderness;  and  it  may 
be  that  he  used  the  name  as  a species  of  inheritance,  like  the  Constables 
of  Flamborough.  As  will  be  noted  in  the  text  below  he  was  steward  to 
earl  William  de  Mandeville,  who  was  lord  of  Holderness  jure  uxoris. 

7 E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1381.  8 Chron.  de  Melsa,  i,  220. 

9 E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1308. 

10  Ibid.,  nos.  1309,  1320,  1400,  1406;  and  1307,  issued  at  Aumale. 

11  Ibid.,  nos.  1310-1.  12  Ibid.,  no.  1312. 


He  had  given  permission  for  Gilbert  de  Alost  to  acquire 
land  in  Fraisthorpe  as  of  his  own  inheritance,  to  hold  of  him  and 
his  heirs  to  Gilbert  and  his  heirs.  This  permission  is  stated  in  his 
charter  to  Thomas  de  Alost,  described  as  his  brother  and  son  of 
Gilbert  de  Alost,  restoring  to  him  a capital  messuage  and  two 
carucates  of  land  in  Fraisthorpe,  and  restoring  to  Ralph  de  Alost, 
also  described  as  his  brother,  two  other  carucates  there,  with 
remainder  in  default  of  issue  to  Thomas  and  his  heirs;  to  be  held 
of  Robert  (the  grantor)  and  his  heirs.1  He  also  issued  a separate 
charter  on  the  same  occasion  to  Ralph  de  Alost  to  the  same 
effect.2  These  charters  were  presumably  issued  soon  after  the 
death  of  Gilbert  de  Alost;  and,  as  noted  above,  they  were  con- 
temporaneous with  the  charter  issued  by  Erneburga  de  Burton 
to  Swine  priory.  Farrer  assigned  the  date  of  the  first  of  them 
as  11 85-95 ;3  but  the  latter  limit  is  later  than  Robert’s  death  on 
crusade.  Loyd  was  of  opinion  that  it  was  earlier  than  the  final 
concord  of  16  Oct.  1182  between  Thomas  de  Alost  and  Bridlington 
priory.  By  that  agreement4  Thomas  quitclaimed  to  the  priory 
the  vill  of  Speeton  in  return  for  a carucate  of  land  in  Fraisthorpe 
to  be  held  of  the  canons  for  2s.  yearly.5  But  it  is  likely  that  this 
carucate  was  the  one  which  had  been  confirmed  to  the  priory  by 
Roger  de  Mowbray  at  a much  earlier  date,6  and  was  separate 
from  the  4 carucates  restored  to  Thomas  and  Ralph  de  Alost. 
However  that  may  be,  it  seems  safe  to  give  the  period  of  Robert’s 
charters  to  his  Alost  brothers  as  1170-85.  Loyd  gave  conclusive 
reasons  to  show  that  they  were  Robert’s  brothers  of  the  half-blood. 

Robert  the  constable  issued  a charter  at  Whitsuntide  1188, 
at  the  request  of  earl  William  de  Mandeville,  giving  his  lordship 
of  Tharlesthorpe  to  the  monks  of  Meaux,  William,  Robert’s 
brother,  being  then  alive.7 

On  starting  for  the  crusade  he  received  a loan  of  160  marks 
from  the  monks,  to  whom  he  assigned  the  vills  of  Tharlesthorpe 
and  Halsham  to  be  retained  until  the  loan  was  repaid  from  their 
proceeds;  and  it  is  stated  that  he  had  acquired  the  first  of  these 
vills,  a member  of  the  archbishop’s  fee,  from  the  ancestors  of 
Peter  de  Frodingham.8  Described  as  steward  of  earl  William 
de  Mandeville  he  was  among  those  who  died  at  the  siege  of  Acre 
in  1190  or  1191. 9 

It  is  recorded  in  the  Meaux  Chronicle  that  his  gifts  to  the 
abbey  were  confirmed  by  his  brothers  and  relations,  except 
William  his  next  brother  who  died  before  him,  and  that  William’s 

1 Ibid.,  ii,  no.  808;  and  Hatton  Bk  of  Seals,  no.  520,  with  a valuable 
annotation  by  Mr.  Lewis  Loyd. 

2 Bridlington  Chartulary,  p.  195;  and  Hatton  Bk  of  Seals,  no.  521. 

3 By  a slip  he  gave  the  grantor  as  Robert  the  constable  (of  Flam- 
borough)  instead  of  Robert  the  constable  (of  Halsham). 

4 E.Y.C.,  ii,  no.  1220. 

5 He  did  not  quitclaim  to  them  the  carucate  in  Fraisthorpe,  as  in 
Loyd’s  note. 

6 Bridlington  Chartulary,  p.  206.  7 E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1364. 

8 Chron.  de  Melsa,  i,  pp.  220-1.  9 Roger  of  Howden,  iii,  89. 



son  Robert  succeeded  him.1  It  can  therefore  be  deduced  that 
William  died  between  1188  and  1191. 

In  an  assize  of  darrein  presentment  to  the  church  of  Halsham 
brought  in  1207  by  Robert  the  constable  (the  younger)  against 
Morgan  provost  of  Beverley  the  jurors  said  that  Robert  the 
constable,  Robert’s  uncle,  had  presented  the  last  rector,  Hugh 
the  chaplain.2  Although  Robert  won  the  case  it  was  later  revived, 
and  it  was  stated  that  Robert  the  uncle  had  quitclaimed  the 
advowson  to  the  church  of  Beverley.3  This  statement  was  in- 
cluded in  a final  concord  in  1212  by  which  Robert  the  younger 
recognised  the  right  of  the  provost  and  church  of  Beverley.4 * 

Robert  the  Constable  II.  As  son  of  William  the  constable 
he  confirmed  to  Bridlington  priory  all  the  donations  and  con- 
firmations of  Thomas  de  Alost  his  uncle  [patrui)\h  and  Thomas 
de  Alost  quitclaimed  to  him  3  in  Burton  Constable, 
3 carucates  in  West  Newton,  2 carucates  in  Tharlesthorpe  and 
2 carucates  in  Morton  [?  recte  Marton,  par.  Swine],  receiving 
25  marks,  and  also,  describing  Robert  as  his  nephew,  half  a 
carucate  in  Flinton  for  3 marks.6 

He  married  Ela  daughter  of  Fulk  de  Oyri  with  whom  he 
had  in  frank-marriage  half  a carucate  of  land  which  Robert  the 
constable  his  uncle  had  given  to  Walter  Thanet;7  and  from  them 
descended  the  family  of  Constable  of  Halsham  and  Burton  Con- 
stable in  the  male  line  until  the  death  of  William  Constable,  4th 
Viscount  Dunbar  in  1718,  when  the  succession  passed  to  the 
families  of  Tunstall,  Sheldon,  Clifford,  and  Chichester,  whose 
representatives  successively  took  the  name  of  Constable.8 


Gilbert  de  Alost.  It  can  be  assumed  that  he  took  his 
name  from  Alost  near  Ghent,  the  lordship  of  which  was  held  by 
the  family  of  Gilbert  de  Gant,  the  Domesday  tenant.9  It  is 
probable  that  he  was  related  to  William  de  Alost,  for  the  custody 
of  whose  land  of  Walter  de  Gant’s  fee  in  Lincolnshire  the  latter 
rendered  account  of  the  large  sum  of  9 8li.  3s.  at  Michaelmas 
1 1 30  ;10  but  no  documentary  evidence  is  available  for  the  location 
of  the  land.  This  William  is,  however,  presumably  the  William 
de  Alost  who  in  1115-18  held  2 bovates  out  of  the  5f  carucates 
of  the  tenancy-in-chief  of  count  Stephen  of  Aumale  in  Thimbleby 
and  elsewhere  in  Horncastle  wapentake,  co  Lincoln,  Walter  de 

1 Chron.  de  Melsa,  i,  220.  2 Curia  Regis  Rolls,  v,  87. 

3 Ibid.,  vi,  pp.  126,  375,  403.  4 Yorks.  Fines,  John,  p.  171. 

5 Bridlington  Chartulary,  p.  201. 

6 Poulson,  Holderness,  ii,  229 n,  giving  the  texts,  abbreviated,  with 

witnesses,  of  two  charters. 

7 Ibid.,  p.  230,  giving  the  abbreviated  text  of  a charter  similarly. 

8 Ibid.,  pp.  230-4;  J.  W.  Clay,  Ext.  and  Dormant  Peerages,  pp.  27-31; 

Dugdale’s  Visitation  of  Yorks.,  ed.  J.  W.  Clay,  ii,  pp.  297,  302-7. 

9 A,  S,  Ellis  in  Y.A.J.,  iv.  230,  i°  Pipe  Roll  31  Hen.  I,  p.  111. 



Gant  also  holding  land  in  Thimbleby.1  A Ralph  de  Alost  wit- 
nessed with  Walter  and  Ralph  de  Gant  a charter  of  king  Henry 
I in  favour  of  Bardney  abbey  in  111  5.2 

According  to  the  suggestion  made  above  Gilbert  de  Alost 
married  Erneburga  de  Burton,  widow  of  Ulbert  the  constable, 
and  by  her  had  issue  : 

(1)  Thomas  de  Alost.  Robert  the  constable  the  elder, 
describing  him  as  his  brother  and  son  of  Gilbert  de  Alost,  restored 
to  him  a capital  messuage  and  2 carucates  of  land  in  Fraisthorpe 
(see  above).  Thomas  made  several  gifts  to  Bridlington  priory  of 
land  in  Fraisthorpe,  his  charters  mentioning  Stephen  his  brother, 
Simon  his  nephew  and  Erneburg  his  niece;  in  one  of  these  he 
gave  his  capital  messuage  there  with  his  body  [for  burial];3 
and  his  final  concord  made  with  the  priory  in  1182  has  been 
mentioned  above.  He  was  also  a benefactor  of  St.  Giles's  hospital, 
Beverley,  giving  4 bovates  of  land  in  Fraisthorpe.4  In  1198  he 
was  one  of  the  four  knights  in  a case  relating  to  Rillington.5 

He  had  a son  William,  with  whose  consent  as  his  heir  he 
issued  two  of  his  charters  to  Bridlington  priory;6  but  no  further 
record  of  William  has  been  found. 

(2)  Ralph  de  Alost.  The  charter  issued  to  him  by  Robert 
the  constable  the  elder  has  been  mentioned  above.  He  gave  to 
Simon  his  son  and  heir  a bovate  of  land  in  Fraisthorpe,  which 
was  confirmed  by  Thomas,  Ralph's  brother,  and  which  was 
given  by  Simon  to  Bridlington  priory,  his  gift  being  confirmed  by 
Thomas  who  described  Simon  as  his  nephew.7  Simon’s  wife 
Maud  le  Cras,  daughter  of  Alan  de  Brigham,  sold  2 bovates  of 
land  in  Sewerby  to  Robert  son  of  William  de  Sewerby.8 

(3)  Stephen  de  Alost.  He  gave  6 bovates  of  land  in  Frais- 
thorpe to  Bridlington  priory,  and  confirmed  gifts  by  Thomas  his 
brother  thereto.9  He  witnessed  a charter  of  Ralph  Mauleverer, 
1202-10;10  and  was  living  in  1208  when  he  rendered  account  of 
5J  marks  in  Yorkshire  for  a perjury.11 

(4)  John  de  Alost.  With  Thomas  and  Stephen  his  brothers 
he  witnessed  the  charter  of  Erneburga  de  Burton  (their  mother) 
to  Swine  priory.12 

(5)  Hugh  de  Alost.  As  son  of  Gilbert  he  confirmed  gifts  by 
Thomas  his  brother  to  Bridlington  priory;  and  he  had  a son  Hugh 

1 Lindsey  Survey,  Lincoln  Rec.  Soc.,  p.  260. 

2 Reg.  Regum  Anglo-N ormannorum , ii,  no.  1097. 

3 Bridlington  Chartulary,  pp.  195-7,  200,  206. 

* E.Y.C.,  ii,  nos.  809-10. 

5 Curia  Regis  Rolls,  vii,  345. 

6 Bridlington  Chartulary , pp.  196-7. 

7 Ibid.,  p.  199;  and,  for  other  gifts  by  Simon,  pp.  198,  200. 

8 Yorks.  Deeds,  vi,  nos.  399,  400. 

9 Bridlington  Chartulary,  pp.  197,  200.  10  E.Y.C.,  vii,  no.  67. 

11  Pipe  Roll  10  John,  p.  153.  12  E.Y.C.,  iii,  no.  1361. 



who  confirmed  gifts  made  by  Thomas  described  as  his  uncle. 1 

(6)  Beatrice.  As  widow  of  Henry  son  of  Henry  de  Katton 
[Cayton]  she  quitclaimed  to  Oliver  de  Croum  [Croom,  par. 
Sledmere]  and  Erenburc  his  wife  by  final  concords  in  1206  a 
third  of  a carucate  in  Lebberston  [par.  Cayton],  which  she 
claimed  as  her  dower,  for  other  land  there  to  hold  for  life;  and 
quitclaimed  to  others  land  in  Osgodby  [par.  Cayton]  which  she 
also  claimed  as  her  dower.2  Erneburg  (her  daughter),  described 
as  daughter  of  Henry  de  Kayton  and  widow  of  Oliver  de  Crohom, 
quitclaimed  to  Bridlington  priory  her  right  in  a bovate  of  land 
in  Fraisthorpe,  with  a warranty  of  land  in  Lebberston  to  that 
value,  Oliver  her  husband  having  previously  made  a quitclaim; 
and  Oliver  and  Erneburg  in  her  widowhood  each  quitclaimed  their 
right  in  two  further  bovates  in  the  same  place.3  Thomas  son  of 
Oliver  de  Crohom  confirmed  to  the  priory  the  3 bovates  in  Frais- 
thorpe given  by  Erenburga  his  mother.4  As  noted  above  Thomas 
de  Alost  had  a niece  named  Erneburg,  with  whom  she  can  be 

1 Bridlington  Chartulary,  pp.  197,  201.  In  1204  an  Agnes  de  Alost 
claimed  24  acres  in  Gooderstone,  Norfolk,  as  her  dower,  for  which  her 
son  Hugh  de  Alost  was  her  warrantor  ( Curia  Regis  Rolls,  iii,  206) ; but  no 
clue  has  been  found  to  connect  her  and  that  Hugh  with  Yorkshire. 

2 Yorks.  Fines,  John,  p.  102. 

3 Bridlington  Chartulary,  pp.  207-8.  In  the  second  she  is  described  as 
daughter  of  Adam  de  Kayton;  this,  though  quite  clear  in  the  MS.,  is  an 
obvious  mistake.  The  descent  Durand,  Henry,  Henry  to  William  son  of 
Henry  de  Kaiton  is  given  in  a charter  of  the  latter  in  ibid.,  p.  272;  and  she 
was  a sister  of  William. 

4 Ibid.,  p.  208. 



By  Ian  R.  Christie. 

In  some  newly  discovered  papers  of  the  Yorkshire  Associa- 
tion, now  in  York  City  Library,1  there  are  three  documents  which 
throw  light  on  the  parliamentary  activity  during  February  1780 
of  Sir  George  Savile,  member  of  parliament  for  Yorkshire.  At 
this  time  public  discontent  with  the  administration  of  Lord 
North  was  at  its  height.  The  ministers,  having  provoked  a war 
with  the  American  colonies,  seemed  well  on  the  way  to  losing  it, 
and  they  were  suspected  by  their  critics  of  nursing  authoritarian 
tendencies  and  of  keeping  their  power  only  by  the  corrupt  use  of 
political  patronage.  A few  weeks  earlier,  a group  of  Yorkshire 
gentry,  headed  by  the  reverend  Christopher  Wyvill,  had  launched 
the  movement,  which  was  to  become  the  Yorkshire  Association 
and  to  take  the  lead  in  the  country  for  the  next  four  years  in  the 
agitation  for  parliamentary  reform.  On  29  December  1779,  at  a 
crowded  meeting  at  York,  a petition  to  the  House  of  Commons 
was  adopted,  protesting  against  'sinecure  places,  efficient  places 
with  exorbitant  emoluments,  and  pensions  unmerited  by  public 
service’,  on  which,  it  was  alleged,  an  excessive  influence  of  the 
crown  in  parliament  had  been  based.2  About  twenty  copies  of 
the  petition  were  then  circulated  throughout  the  county,  and  by 
the  end  of  January  it  had  been  signed  by  about  eight  thousand 
of  the  county  electors.  The  redress  which  it  demanded  formed 
the  first  instalment  of  reform  desired  by  the  Yorkshiremen — a 
part  of  what  came  to  be  generally  described  as  'economical 
reform’— and  support  for  it  was  immediately  forthcoming  from 
many  other  constituencies.  Meanwhile,  during  the  same  period, 
the  leaders  of  the  parliamentary  opposition  to  the  North  ministry, 
taking  their  cue  from  the  public  agitation,  began  to  sketch  out 
their  own  version  of  'economical  reform’,  the  centre-piece  of  which 
was  Edmund  Burke’s  plan  for  a reform  of  the  court  and  ministerial 

The  Yorkshire  petition  was  sent  from  York  to  London 
during  the  first  week  of  February.3  On  the  8th  Savile  presented 

1 York  City  Library  MSS.  M.25.  My  thanks  are  due  to  the  York 
City  Council  and  the  City  Library  for  permission  to  make  use  of  these 

2 Christopher  Wyvill,  Political  Papers,  chiefly  respecting  the  Attempt 
of  the  County  of  York  and  other  Considerable  Districts  ...  to  effect  a Refor- 
mation of  . . . Parliament  (six  volumes,  n.d.),  i,  7-9. 

3 Ibid.,  i,  76. 


it  in  the  House  of  Commons.  During  the  course  of  the  debate  he 
explained,  that  ‘something  more  was  expected’  by  the  petitioners 
than  appeared  on  the  face  of  Burke’s  outline  plan,  due  to  be 
presented  to  the  House  as  a Bill  later  that  week.  On  the  15th, 
Savile  secured  the  unopposed  passage  of  a motion  for  an  account 
of  all  appointments,  with  the  salaries  attached  to  them,  to  be 
laid  before  the  House.  He  then  moved  for  a list  of  all  pensions, 
but  this  motion  was  lost  when  the  sudden  illness  of  the  Speaker 
interrupted  the  proceedings  of  the  House.  On  the  21st,  he  renewed 
the  motion  for  a list  of  pensions,  and  it  was  in  substance  defeated 
by  an  amendment  moved  by  Lord  North.  During  this  debate 
he  stated,  that  his  ultimate  intention  was  to  secure  the  dis- 
continuance of  ‘unmerited  pensions’. 1 

Christopher  Wyvill,  the  leader  of  the  Yorkshire  reformers, 
came  up  to  London  at  the  end  of  January,  and  these  proceedings 
seem  to  have  arisen  out  of  discussions  between  himself,  Savile, 
and  other  Yorkshire  politicians.  The  advance  outline  sketch  of 
Burke’s  scheme  of  reform2  had  two  major  faults  from  the  York- 
shiremen’s  point  of  view.  Neither  on  curtailment  of  pensions 
(branch  seven)  nor  on  abolition  of  sinecure  offices  (branches 
seven  and  eleven)  did  it  appear  sufficiently  drastic  or  immediate 
in  operation.  There  was,  indeed,  a direct  conflict  of  views  between 
Burke  and  the  Yorkshire  reformers.  Their  petition  called  for  the 
abolition  of  all  sinecures  and  unmerited  pensions,  and  for  the 
reduction  of  all  exorbitant  emoluments.  On  11  February,  when 
Burke  introduced  his  Bill,  he  went  out  of  his  way  to  criticize  each 
of  these  points.  He  dismissed  an  examination  of  existing  pensions 
as  impracticable.  He  proposed  simply  to  limit  the  annual  sum 
available  for  pensions  in  future,  no  further  pensions  being  granted 
until  this  branch  of  the  expenditure  had  been  reduced  to  the 
maximum  fixed  by  the  judgment  of  parliament.  He  rejected  the 
Yorkshire  contention  that  it  was  necessary  to  look  for  and  eliminate 
exorbitant  salaries  attached  to  efficient  offices.  He  was  prepared 
to  sweep  away  a large  number  of  sinecures  held  at  pleasure,  on 
the  ground  that  these  gave  the  crown  an  influence  in  parliament. 
But  he  would  not  extinguish  sinecures  held  by  patent  for  life, 
since  these  did  not  confer  ‘influence’,  the  holders  being  financially 
independent  of  the  crown.  He  agreed  that  some  of  the  emoluments 
attached  to  these  sinecures  were  excessive,  and  that  fixed,  limited 
salaries  should  be  established  eventually,  as  the  existing  lives  and 
reversions  should  successively  fall.  But  given  this  slow-working 
reform,  he  was  perfectly  content,  that  the  descendants  of  the 
Walpoles,  Pelhams,  Townshends,  and  other  great  political  families, 
should  remain  quartered  on  the  public  funds.3 

1 J.  Almon,  The  Parliamentary  Register,  vol.  xvii  (1780),  72-5,  127-8, 
130-1,  136. 

2 The  Correspondence  of . . . Edmund  Burke,  ed.  Fitzwilliam  and  Bourke 
(four  volumes,  1844),  ii.  330-2. 

3 The  Works  of  Edmund  Burke  (Bohn  edn.,  eight  volumes,  1894-1900), 
ii,  97-105. 



To  secure  unity  of  effort  was  always  one  of  Wyvill’s  major 
concerns.  In  the  situation  of  the  moment  he  foresaw  the  danger 
of  a quarrel  between  Burke  and  the  petitioners,  and  some  of  his 
suggestions  for  averting  this  appear  in  the  following  memorandum. 
This  document,  a copy,  in  which  only  the  final  note  of  five  or 
six  lines  is  in  Wyvill’s  hand,  was  evidently  sent  to  York  for  the 
information  of  the  county  committee,  of  which  he  was  the  chairman. 
It  was  endorsed:  ‘7  Febr.  1780.  Minutes  sent  by  Mr.  Wyvill  of 
a probable  method  of  proceeding  in  Parliament.’  The  contents  ran: 

On  the  supposition  that  neither  the  petition  nor  the  plan  of  Mr.  Burke 
will  be  successful  this  session,  it  is  evidently  the  interest  of  all  parties 
embarked  in  this  cause,  and  consequently  the  interest  of  the  public,  that 
the  petitioning  counties  be  not  disgusted  by  the  propositions  of  that  plan, 
or  the  mode  of  conducting  it.  For  without  the  aid  of  those  counties,  it  is 
impossible  the  plan,  even  in  part,  should  succeed  next  year. 

I see  no  propositions  in  Mr.  Burke’s  scheme,  that  can  disgust  the 
petitioners,  except  in  the  seventh  and  eleventh  branches;  and  I conceive 
those  propositions  can  only  disgust  by  the  mode  and  time  of  offering  them. 
If  a motion  for  cutting  off  the  influence  of  the  Crown  in  those  instances 
which  Mr.  Burke’s  plan  proposes  to  spare,  were  first  made  on  the  ground 
of  the  petition,  and  rejected;  that  plan  as  it  now  stands  might  then  be 
brought  forward,  without  a possibility  of  offence  to  the  petitioning  counties. 

I submit  it  to  the  consideration  of  better  judgments,  whether  such  a motion 
might  not  properly  be  made  in  the  following  manner. 

Sir  George  Savile  to  declare,  that  he  understands  from  his  honourable 
friend,  that  in  many  parts  of  his  plan,  the  objects  of  reform  are  the  same, 
and  pursued  to  the  same  extent  as  in  the  petition  of  Yorkshire,  but  that 
in  some  respects  the  proposals  differ,  and  the  petitioners  request  a more 
extensive  reform  than  that  conceived  by  Mr.  Burke;  particularly  in  the  two 
important  articles  of  sinecure  offices  for  life,  by  patent  or  otherwise;  and 
of  the  pension  list.  Therefore,  in  justice  to  his  constituents,  and  the 
declared  sense  of  a large  body  of  the  people,  to  move  for  leave  to  bring 
in  bills  to  abolish  all  patent  and  other  offices  for  life  in  the  Exchequer, 
Customs,  and  elsewhere,  after  the  lives  of  the  present  possessors;  and  to 
establish  regulations  for  restraining  the  grant  of  pensions  within  reasonable 
limits,  and  for  some  public  service.  According  to  this  idea  the  proposal 
of  Mr.  Burke’s  plan  would  necessarily  be  postponed. 

If  Mr.  Burke  dislikes  postponing  his  motion,  another  way  of  getting 
over  this  difficulty  presents  itself.  Mr.  Burke  understanding  that  Sir  George 
Savile  has  a motion  to  make  of  a larger  reach  on  the  subject  of  patent  and 
other  places  for  life  and  pensions,  than  the  extent  of  his  idea;  might  beg 
leave  to  defer  proposing  that  part  of  his  plan  till  the  sense  of  the  House 
could  be  taken  on  the  propositions  which  Sir  George  Savile  has  to  make. 

By  either  of  these  methods  I conceive  it  possible  to  adjust  the  difference 
between  the  two  plans,  without  offence  to  the  petitioners.  Either  of  them 
would  leave  to  Mr.  Burke’s  share  the  greatest  part  of  his  plan;  and  all  that 
is  particular  to  it,  namely,  what  goes  to  improve  the  constitution  of  the 
administration  of  the  Civil  List  Revenues.  And  either  of  them  would  leave 
to  Sir  George  Savile  not  all,  but  the  most  material  objects  of  reform 
specifically  proposed  in  the  petition — The  petitioners  have  the  most  perfect 
confidence  in  Sir  George  Savile,  and  I conceive  they  wish  him  to  take  a 
leading  part  on  this  occasion. 

Below  this  was  added,  in  Wyvill’s  hand: 

After  some  deliberation  on  the  contents  of  this  paper,  and  many  other 
expedients  which  were  proposed  to  obviate  difficulties,  Sir  Geo.  Savile 
determined  to  put  in  his  claim,  on  presenting  the  petition,  either  to  propose 
a bill,  to  supply  what  might  be  found  deficient  in  Mr.  Burke’s  plan,  or  else 
to  move  corrections  to  bring  it  up  to  the  terms  of  the  petition. 



Accordingly,  on  8 February,  Savile  made  the  explanation,  that 
additions  to  Burke’s  scheme  would  be  necessary.  On  the  11th, 
Burke,  as  he  had  originally  planned,  moved  for  leave  to  bring  in 
his  Establishment  Bill.  At  this  stage  the  eleventh  branch,  the 
abolition  of  customs  sinecures,  was  omitted.1  Whether  this  was 
done  by  agreement  with  Savile  does  not  appear.  But  by  the  14th 
it  had  been  decided  by  the  Yorkshiremen,  that  Savile  should 
proceed  with  a separate  Bill  and  not  by  way  of  amendments  to 
Burke’s.  The  remaining  two  documents  under  consideration 
record  this  decision  and  the  line  of  action  which  was  to  follow 
from  it.  At  three  o’clock  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th,  Wyvill 
wrote  to  his  friend  and  collaborator,  Stephen  Croft,  at  York  : 

I am  just  come  from  Sir  George  Savile’s,  where  there  was  a meeting 
of  about  a dozen  friends  to  the  petition.  The  inclosed  motion  was  put  into 
more  parliamentary  language,  and  he  is  gone  down  to  the  House  to  give 
notice  that  he  will  move  the  House  tomorrow,  on  these  questions.  This 
is  the  first  preparatory  step  to  his  bringing  forward  a bill  to  make  up  the 
deficiencies  of  Burke’s  bill  ...  I shall  be  most  happy  to  hear  you  and  Mr. 
Mason,  and  our  friends  in  general  approve  the  present  mode  proposed  for 
conducting  our  affairs. 

With  this  letter  he  enclosed  the  following  paper  : 

Motion  on  Monday  by  Sir  G.  S. 

To  lay  upon  the  table  lists  of  the  pensions  and  patent  and  other  places 
for  life. 

This  motion  being  carried,  notice  will  be  given  by  Sir  G.  S.  that  as 
soon  as  is  convenient  after  the  above  lists  are  delivered  in,  he  will  move 
for  a bill  to  abolish  the  patent  and  other  places  for  life,  making  a fair 
compensation  to  those  who  have  interests  in  the  same;  and  also  for 
establishing  certain  regulations  for  checking  abuses  in  future  in  the  grant 
of  pensions. 

These  are  the  intended  additions,  I believe,  to  Mr.  Burke’s  plan,  and 
they  bring  it  up  to  the  terms  of  the  petition.  Together  they  will  produce 
a reform  fully  satisfactory,  it  is  hoped,  to  all  our  friends. 

Savile  accordingly  made  his  motions  of  15  and  21  February. 
North’s  successful  amendment  excluded  the  list  of  secret  service 
pensions  from  the  returns  he  demanded,  and  this  destroyed  the 
basis  of  a major  part  of  his  proposed  legislation,  which  seems 
thereupon  to  have  been  abandoned.  But,  in  any  case,  the  object 
of  the  manoeuvre  had  now  been  secured.  Wyvill  could  argue  that 
there  was  no  longer  any  need  for  the  reformers  in  the  counties  to 
be  ‘disgusted’,  on  the  ground  that  Burke’s  Establishment  Bill  did 
not  fully  meet  their  demands. 

1 Text  of  Burke’s  Bill,  Almon,  The  Parliamentary  Register,  vol.  xvii 
117801.  93-116. 



By  J.  Davies  and  W.  F.  Rankine. 

Two  unfinished  Mesolithic  flint  axes  have  recently  been 
recorded  from  Rishworth,  Calderdale  and  Blubberhouses  Moor, 
Mid- Wharf edale,  respectively;  the  former  was  found  by  E.  V. 
Darby  of  Barkisland,  Halifax  and  the  other  by  J.  Davies  of 

The  Rishworth  axe,  measuring  6f"  in  length,  maximum 
width  2£"  and  maximum  thickness  1J"  was  found  about  1923  in 
the  bed  of  the  reservoir  on  Ringstone  Edge  Moor  when  the  level 
of  the  water  was  low.  The  find-spot,  at  c.  1000'  O.D.  is  \ mile 
S.E.  from  the  summit  of  the  moor;  Grid  Ref.  (1"  O.S.  Map  Sheets 
96,  102)  SE  048183.  The  axe  is  illustrated  in  Petch  (1924),  Fig. 
20a,  where  it  is  described  as  a (Neolithic)  'unpolished  celt’  and 
there  is  a passing  reference  to  it  as  of  ‘?  Mesolithic  type’  in  Jackson 
(1934).  The  tranchet  contour  and  the  flaking  pattern  shown  in 
the  half-tone  illustration  attracted  the  attention  of  W.  F.  Rankine 
who,  eventually,  was  able  to  examine  the  axe  through  the  kindness 
of  its  finder.  It  proved  to  be  a Mesolithic  axe  abandoned  in  the 

The  implement  is  of  dull  grey  flint  with  a core  of  cherty 
material  which,  apparently,  was  the  reason  why  the  axe  was  not 
finished.  Fig.  1b  shows  that  the  flat  flaking  of  the  ventral  surface 
had  been  successfully  commenced  but  the  large  hollow  in  the 
cherty  area  prevented  its  completion.  Fig.  1a  shows  that  an 
incipient  median  ridge  on  the  dorsal  surface  and  a satisfactory 
side  edge  had  been  established  before  the  axe  was  abandoned. 

The  finder  states  that  some  large  flakes  of  grey  flint  were 
found  with  the  axe  but  not  retained.  These  were  possibly  the 
trimming  flakes. 

The  second  axe  was  found  in  March  1959  in  a small  erosion 
patch  on  Black  Fell,  Blubberhouses  Moor  at  about  1250'  O.D., 
the  find  spot  being  about  J mile  east  of  the  summit;  Grid  Ref. 
(1"  O.S.  Map  sheet  96).  S.E.  128535.  This  was  almost  completely 
buried  in  a recent  unconsolidated  deposit  of  sand  (formed  from 
decomposed  rock)  and  finely  comminuted  peat,  both  probably 
wind  borne. 

This  flint  is  best  described  as  a tranchet  ‘rough-out’  and 
Fig.  2 diagrammatically  indicates  its  flaking  history.  B.  shows 
the  first  stage  of  development;  a flint  nodule  just  over  5"  in 
length  has  been  boldly  flaked  laterally  to  form  a sharp  cutting 
edge.  This  was  successfully  done.  Longitudinal  flaking  from  the 
intended  cutting  end  of  the  axe,  A and  C,  was  effected  on  both 


surfaces.  Attempts  to  flake  another  side  edge  proved  abortive 
because  a flaking  platform  could  not  be  established  on  the  curving 
surface.  Many  attempts  were  made  to  flake  this  edge  and  this  is 
shown  by  the  broken  cortex  of  the  nodule  (c  in  both  A and  C) 
and  a number  of  incipient  cones  of  percussion.  The  implement 
has  been  made  from  a beach  pebble,  probably  from  the  Brid- 
lington area,  and  the  butt  is  much  abraded  from  use  as  a hammer 

Fig.  1. 

Tranchet  Axe  from  Ringstone  Edge  Moor  (W.R.). 

Both  flints  are  of  Maglemosian  type,  the  first  to  be  recorded 
from  West  Yorkshire,  though,  unfortunately,  the  circumstances 
of  their  discovery  preclude  any  possibility  of  precise  dating.  The 
surface  of  these  moors  consists  of  a podsolised  mineral  soil,  derived 
from  the  weathering  of  Millstone  Grit  strata,  underlying  blanket 
bog  peat,  the  continued  erosion  of  which  exposes  flints  in  patches. 
With  the  exception  of  post-Mesolithic  artefacts  (which  may 
derive  from  the  peat  itself)  the  majority  of  these  have  a Sauve- 
terrian  facies  (Clark,  1956),  though  certain  of  the  microlithic  forms 
such  as  some  long  obliquely  blunted  points  from  Blubberhouses 
Moor  and  three  isosceles  triangles  from  Ringstone  Edge  Moor  may 
possibly  be  co-eval  with  the  axes.  It  should  be  observed,  however, 
that  even  if  the  axes  had  been  found  sealed  in  by  peat  in  situ  it 



might  not  have  been  possible,  in  the  absence  of  contemporaneous 
organic  matter  to  assign  more  than  a minimum  dating  to  them. 

The  “basal  layers  of  blanket  bog  peat  are  particularly 
difficult  to  date  by  pollen  analytical  means”  (Walker  1957)  but 
where  they  have  been  investigated  in  the  Pennines  they  have 
been  shown  to  belong  to  the  Atlantic  (pollen  analytical  Zone 
Vila)  or  even  a later  period.  Thus  there  might  be  in  many  places 
a considerable  hiatus  between  the  early  post-Glacial  occupation  of 
the  moors  and  the  deposition  of  the  peat. 

A B c 

Fig.  2. 

Tranchet  Axe  from  Blubberhouses  Moor  (W.R.). 

On  Blubberhouses  Moor  itself  a small  microlithic  flaking 
floor  covered  by  about  12"  of  highly  humified  blanket  bog  peat  was 
found  by  J.  Davies  on  the  northern  flank  at  about  1000'  O.D.  in 
October  1955.  The  following  month  Dr.  D.  Walker  of  the 
University  Sub-Department  of  Quaternary  Research,  Cambridge, 
sampled  the  peat  for  pollen  analysis.  The  results  suggested  a 
Sub-Boreal  (Zone  Vllb)  or  even  a later  dating,  though  “the  data 
are  insufficient  to  allow  a close  dating.  Unfortunately  no  direct 
correlation  between  the  age  of  the  peat  and  the  age  of  the  artefacts 
in  the  underlying  sand  is  possible”  (Walker,  private  communica- 

The  site  at  Stump  Cross,  a few  miles  to  the  north  was 
exceptional  in  that  flints  of  Sauveterrian  affinities  were  actually 
stratified  in  peaty  detritus  dating  from  the  Boreal-Atlantic 
transition  to  the  middle  of  the  Atlantic,  the  first  and,  so  far,  the 
only  direct  dating  of  a Pennine  microlithic  industry.  (Walker  1957). 

WE5T  HAfm.Ef*OkJ 



Fig.  3.  Distribution  of  Tranchet  Axes  in  Yorkshire. 




It  is  perhaps  not  inopportune  to  list  here  the  known  York- 
shire tranchet  axes.  Two  surface  finds  are  recorded  from  Nova, 
near  Pickering  (NR)  and  Cock  Heads,  Glaisdale  (NR)  respectively. 
(Elgee,  F.  1930;  Elgee,  F.  and  H.  W.  1933).  Armstrong  (1923) 
describes  and  illustrates  a tranchet  exposed  by  a fall  of  cliff  at 
Skipsea  (ER),  containing  a section  of  mere  deposits  from  which 
it  was  almost  certainly  derived  as  well  as  a comparable  specimen, 
also  from  Skipsea,  found  in  April  1906  by  B.  Morfitt.  The  two 
proto-Maglemosian  sites  at  Flixton  (NR)  (Moore,  1950)  and  Star 
Carr  (NR)  (Clark  1954)  yielded  two  and  seven  tranchets  re- 
spectively. (Both  of  these  are  very  small  numbers  compared  with 
the  total  number  of  flints  from  each  site,  namely  7,728,  and 
16,937.)  Finally,  from  just  over  the  border  in  Co.  Durham, 
Trechmann  (1936)  records  a tranchet  in  the  Sunderland  Museum, 
which  was  found  about  1860  by  E.  C.  Robson  in  the  submerged 
forest  on  the  shore  near  West  Hartlepool. 

This  distribution  is  illustrated  in  Fig.  3. 

Discussion.  (W.F.R.) 

Both  axes  undoubtedly  belong  to  one  of  the  Maglemosian 
folk-movements  from  north-west  Europe  which  reached  the 
north-east  of  the  country  during  the  pre-Boreal-Atlantic  climatic 
phases  (circa  8000-4000  B.C.)  as  testified,  for  instance,  by  Star 
Carr  and  the  stray  tranchet  axes  recorded  in  the  foregoing 

The  significant  feature  of  the  Rishworth  tranchet  is  its 
flatly  dressed  ventral  surface  (see  fig.  1b)  to  which  the  writer 
attaches  some  diagnostic  value.  This  tranchet  type,  in  a Magle- 
mosian context,  has  been  recorded  from  all  over  the  Thames 
Region,  but  whether  this  flat  flaking  technique  may  be  assigned 
to  an  Early  or  Late,  or  both  Early  and  Late  Maglemosian  in- 
dustries cannot  be  determined  in  the  absence  of  comparative 
discovery  data. 

The  presence  of  these  axes  in  the  West  Riding,  many  miles 
from  the  coast,  naturally  directs  attention  to  the  possibility  that 
other  Maglemosian  implement  types  may  yet  be  found  in  the 
region.  A study  of  the  occurrence  and  distribution  of  the  hour- 
glass perforated  pebble  which  has  a Maglemosian  date  (Rankine 
1949)  would  aid  this  enquiry. 

Finally,  Buckley’s  broad  blade  industry  should  be  carefully 
re-examined  with  regard  to  its  possible  affinities  with  Maglemose 
particularly  in  connexion  with  the  raw  flint  material  used  in  the 
West  Riding.  It  is  claimed  that  a poor  whitish  to  grey  flint  was 
exploited  by  the  broad  blade  knappers  and  it  is  rather  significant 
that  the  Rishworth  tranchet  was  roughed  out  from  such  raw 

Although,  according  to  records,  intensive  flint  collecting  has 
been  in  progress  in  the  Huddersfield  district  since  1870  it  is  more 
than  remarkable  that  until  recently  no  axe,  nor  sharpening  flake, 
had  been  recorded.  However,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 



both  specimens  which  form  the  subject  of  this  contribution  only 
just  escaped  passing  into  oblivion. 


Armstrong,  A.  L.,  1923.  “The  Maglemose  Remains  of  Holderness  and  their 
Baltic  Counterparts”  P.P.S.E.A.,  Vol.  IV. 

Clark,  J.  D.  G.,  1954.  “Excavations  at  Star  Carr.” 

Clark,  J.  D.  G.,  1956.  “A  Microlithic  Industry  from  the  Cambridgeshire 
Fenlands  and  other  British  Industries  of  Sauveterrian  Affinities”, 
P.P.S.,  Vol.  XXI. 

Elgee,  F.,  1930.  Early  Man  in  North-East  Yorkshire. 

Elgee,  F.  and  H.  W.,  1933.  The  Archaeology  of  Yorkshire. 

Jackson,  J.  W.,  1936.  “The  Prehistoric  Archaeology  of  Lancashire  and 
Cheshire.  Trans.  Lancs.  & Ches.  Ant.  Soc.,  Vol.  L. 

Moore,  J.,  1950.  “Mesolithic  Sites  in  the  Neighbourhood  of  Flixton,  North- 
East  Yorkshire”,  P.P.S.,  Vol.  XVI. 

Petch,  J.  A.,  1924.  Early  Man  in  the  District  of  Huddersfield. 

Rankine,  W.  F.,  1949.  “Maceheads  with  Mesolithic  Associations  from 
South-East  England”,  P.P.S.,  Vol.  XV. 

Trechmann,  C.  T.,  1936.  “Mesolithic  Flints  from  the  Submerged  Forest  at 
West  Hartlepool”,  P.P.S.,  Vol.  II,  Part  2. 

Walker,  D.,  1957.  “A  site  at  Stump  Cross,  near  Grassington,  Yorkshire, 
and  the  Age  of  the  Pennine  Microlithic  Industry”,  P.P.S.,  Vol.  XXII. 



The  Grey  Stone,  Harewood  Park 

By  E.  T.  Cowling  and  C.  E.  Hartley. 

In  October,  1958,  Mr.  C.  E.  Hartley  noted  a carving  of  the 
‘'cup  and  ring”  type  on  the  Grey  Stone  in  Harewood  Park.  This 
large  boulder  is  perched  on  the  brow  of  the  hill  which  overlooks 
Harewood  House  from  the  south.  Its  situation  suggests  that  it 
was  carried  from  higher  up  the  valley  of  the  Wharfe  and  left  in 
its  present  position  by  glacial  action.  In  shape  the  boulder 
resembles  a hut  with  a steep  roof;  the  height  is  about  ten  feet  and 
the  length  north  and  south  some  fourteen  feet;  the  width  is  some 
ten  feet  at  the  base.  The  surface  bears  several  cups  which  may 
be  artificial,  but  which  are  so  weathered,  along  with  the  whole 
surface,  that  no  traces  of  working  remain.  A large  piece  of  rock 
at  the  south  end  has  broken  away  long  ago  and  the  buried  outer 
surface  of  this  portion  may  have  cups  in  a better  state  of  preserva- 
tion. The  cups  are  an  average  of  3 ins.  in  diameter  but  are  not 
arranged  in  a coherent  design. 

The  northern  end  is  roughly  upright  and  slightly  concave, 
with  a surface  about  six  feet  high  and  eight  feet  wide.  In  the 
centre  of  the  area  at  about  eye  level  is  a carving  of  “cup  and 
ring”  type  with  seven  concentric  ovals.  The  vertical  height  is 
24  ins.  and  the  breadth  21  ins.,  and  the  carving  has  a shield-like 
appearance.  The  central  area  seems  to  be  worked  and  may  show 
attempts  at  further  ovals  in  this  small  central  area.  The  rings 
are  made  by  puncturing  the  rock  surface  in  lines  of  small  holes 
and  rubbing  down  the  walls  between.  This  technique  is  the  usual 
one  employed  on  Rombalds  Moor  on  “cup  and  ring”  markings 
and  is  plainly  seen  on  the  Panorama  Rock  marking.  The  absence 
of  a central  cup  in  the  Grey  Stone  carving  is  unusual  in  the  West 
Riding  group  and  the  number  of  concentric  rings  is  one  greater 
than  in  any  other  examples. 

A classification  of  local  “cup  and  ring”  markings  can  be 
made  by  grouping  according  to  the  maximum  number  of  rings  to 
be  found.  From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  the  most  elaborate 
markings,  those  with  the  most  rings,  are  the  earliest  and  the 
majority  of  the  remainder  are  a series  of  copies  which  degenerate 
and  simplify  at  each  stage.  This  being  so,  it  appears  that  the 
Grey  Stone  marking  is  one  of  the  earliest  in  the  district,  of  the 
same  date  as  the  Panorama  Stone  and  the  alleged  cist  stone  at 
Adel.  The  Panorama  Stone  has  a maximum  of  six  rings  and  the 
Adel  Stone  has  six  concentric  diamonds.  Whereas  the  Panorama 
Stone  carving  appears  to  have  been  a prototype  for  many  of  the 
local  carvings,  the  other  two  do  not  seem  to  have  been  copied. 



This  find  extends  the  area  covered  by  the  West  Riding 
group  by  about  four  miles  to  the  east.  It  has  an  area  roughly 
twenty  miles  each  way,  centred  on  Rombalds  Moor,  the  watershed 
of  the  Aire  and  Wharfe.  The  Grey  Stone  stands  on  the  ridge  which 
carried  the  prehistoric  track  across  England  from  coast  to  coast 
by  way  of  the  Aire  Gap.  This  has  been  an  invasion  and  migration 
route  from  the  days  when  Mesolithic  man  used  it  to  obtain  flint 
from  the  Bridlington  area.  It  may  not  be  without  significance 
that  an  exactly  similar,  but  larger,  carving  is  to  be  seen  on  the 
Coronation  Stone  at  Cashel,  the  residence  of  the  kings  of  Con- 
naught and  a centre  of  great  antiquity. 

The  Bronze  Age  associations  of  cup  and  ring  markings  have 
long  been  noted.  In  Brittany  and  Ireland  they  are  found  in 
chambered  tombs  which  were  used  from  the  dawn  of  the  Bronze 
Age  onwards  and  in  Scotland  and  the  Peak  District  they  are 
cut  on  the  stones  of  Bronze  Age  cists.  These  markings  are  of 
simple  and  late  type  and  are  similar  to  those  cut  on  a stone 
interred  with  a boat  burial  at  Brotton  Howe,  for  which  a date  of 
1450  B.C.  has  been  suggested. 

As  the  Grey  Stone  example  seems  to  come  early  in  our 
local  series,  it  may  be  dated  to  the  beginning  of  the  Bronze  Age 
in  this  district,  approximately  1900  B.C. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  Grey  Stone  is  in  a private  park 
and  the  authors  had  a permit  to  visit  the  area. 


Photograph  of  N.W.  face  of  the  Grey 
Stone,  Harewood  Park,  showing  Multi- 
ring Carving. 




By  J.  T.  Ward. 

In  recent  years  social  and  economic  historians  have  under- 
taken increasingly  detailed  research  on  the  history  of  the  Landed 
Interest.  From  family  records,  estate  accounts  and  personal 
correspondence,  often  stored  in  forgotten  boxes  in  old  manor 
houses,  a vast  new  field  of  historical  exploration  is  being  opened. 
In  particular,  a large  amount  of  nineteenth  century  history  is  now 
being  uncovered  for  the  first  time.  The  propagandist  claims  of 
the  Anti-Corn-Law  League,  accepted  as  historical  facts  for  genera- 
tions, are  seriously  questioned.  New  evidence  is  slowly  emerging 
about  the  reactions  of  landowners  to  industrial  development,  the 
methods  of  estate  management  and  farming,  the  connections 
between  great  rural  estates  and  urban  and  mineral  properties, 
and  the  effects  of  agricultural  free  trade  on  English  agriculture. 
Above  all,  perhaps,  the  social  historian  is  able  to  construct  a much 
more  detailed  picture  of  a vanished  society,  of  the  traditional 
form  of  English  rural  life,  which  was  slowly  changed  by  the 
dynamic  industrialism  of  the  last  century  and  which  virtually 
died  in  1914. 

The  following  account,  reproduced  by  kind  permission  of 
Miss  C.  E.  Leeke  and  Mr.  J.  R.  R.  Fullerton,  to  whom  I am 
indebted  for  much  generous  help,  was  written  by  Mrs.  Frances 
Fullerton-Smith  as  a biographical  memoir  of  her  father,  John 
Fullerton  of  Thrybergh  Park,  near  Rotherham.  Frances  Fullerton 
was  the  fourth  daughter  of  Colonel  Fullerton  and  married  the 
Reverend  Charles  Smith,  Rector  of  East  Garston  in  Berkshire, 
who  was  the  son  of  the  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford;  she  died 
in  1896  and  apparently  wrote  her  notes  in  the  late  nineteenth 

The  Fullertons  were  an  old  Scottish  family,  related  to  Sir 
James  Fullarton,  first  Gentleman  of  the  Bedchamber  to  Charles  I. 
For  over  a century,  they  lived  at  Craighall  in  Ayrshire,  marrying 
into  the  families  of  local  lairds  and  merchants.  John  Fullarton, 
born  in  1716,  had  a more  adventurous  life,  travelling  in  India, 
where  his  uncle  John  lived,  and  narrowly  escaping  the  Jedda 
massacre,  on  the  Red  Sea.  As  his  second  wife,  he  married  a Miss 
Weston,  of  West  Horsley  Place,  Surrey.  Three  children  were 
born  of  the  marriage:  John,  the  first  to  adopt  the  modern  spelling 
of  Fullerton,  Weston,  who  died  unmarried,  and  Judith,  who  made 
a fashionable  marriage  to  Savile  Finch,  M.P.,  of  Thrybergh  Hall. 


John,  the  elder  son,  entered  the  Anglican  priesthood  and  was  for 
many  years  Rector  of  Stratford-on-Avon.  He  married  Rebecca, 
daughter  of  Charles  Garth,  M.P.,  of  Haines  Hill,  the  squire  of 
some  2,500  Berkshire  acres.  They  had  two  children,  Judith  and 
John,  the  subject  of  this  paper. 

Thrybergh  Park  is  situated  near  the  village  of  Thrybergh, 
3J  miles  North  East  of  Rotherham.  The  parish  had  belonged  to 
William  de  Perci,  the  founder  of  the  house  of  Percy,  and  later  to 
many  generations  of  the  Reresby  family,  for  whom  a baronetcy 
was  created  in  1642.  Sir  William,  the  profligate  third  baronet, 
sold  or  gambled  away  the  estate  in  1705,  to  John  Savile  of 
Methley,  grandfather  of  the  first  Earl  of  Mexborough.  Savile’s 
eldest  son  predeceased  him  and,  after  the  deaths  of  his  two  eldest 
grandsons,  Thrybergh  fell  to  his  grand-daughter,  Elizabeth,  who 
married  the  hon.  John  Finch,  second  son  of  the  first  Earl  of 
Aylesford.  Finch  died  in  1740  and  his  wife  in  1767,  when  the 
estate  passed  to  their  son,  Savile,  who  sat  for  Malton  between 
1761  and  1780;  he  married  Judith  Fullerton  and  bequeathed  the 
property  to  her,  their  marriage  being  childless. 

The  Thrybergh  estate,  consisting  of  mixed  arable  and  grass 
farms,  was  reported  by  the  Commissioners  for  the  Return  of 
Owners  of  Land  to  consist  of  3,331  acres  in  1873  and  this  figure 
was  later  confirmed  as  substantially  correct  by  the  owner,  Thomas 
Gray  Fullerton.  The  same  report  recorded  the  high  gross  annual 
value  of  £1 3,000  J like  many  other  West  Riding  landowners,  the 
Fullertons  drew  considerable  revenues  from  the  coal  under  their 
land,  by  royalties  and  mine  rents.  Stretching  to  Rotherham  on 
the  West,  Kilnhurst  to  the  North-West  and  Mexborough  and 
Denaby  on  the  North-East,  the  property  was  situated  close  to 
the  bustling  industry  of  nineteenth-century  Yorkshire.  Although 
the  Fullertons  did  not  join  most  of  the  neighbouring  gentry  in 
the  orgy  of  railway  speculation  in  the  1840’s,  John  Fullerton 
bought  North  Midland  shares  in  1842  and  both  the  Midland  and 
Great  Central  Railways  ran  near  the  estate.  The  work  of  a 
conscientious  magistrate  and  yeomanry  officer  brought  the 
squire  into  close  contact  with  the  changing  world  beyond  the 
estate  boundaries.  Nevertheless,  Mrs.  Fullerton-Smith’s  account 
demonstrates  how  one  little  rural  community  retained  its  cohesion 
and  individuality  well  into  the  Industrial  Age  and  how  one  Tory 
squire  maintained  the  life,  traditions  and  standards  of  a gradually 
disintegrating  society.  This  little  sketch  presents  a delightful 
cameo  of  a section  of  nineteenth  century  West  Riding  life  and 
society  of  which  little  now  remains. 

“The  Account  of  Mrs.  Fullerton-Smith.” 

My  father,  John  Fullerton  of  Thrybergh  Park,  Yorkshire, 
was  born  in  February,  1778,  the  only  son  of  the  Revd.  John 

1 Return  of  The  Owners  of  Land,  1873  (London:  1875),  Vol.  II:  West 
Riding  section,  p.  37;  cf.  John  Bateman:  The  Great  Landowners  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,  (London:  1879),  p.  172;  (1883  ed.),  p.  177. 



Fullerton,  Rector  of  All  Cannings,  five  miles  from  Devizes,  and 
Stratford-on-Avon.  His  mother  was  Miss  Garth,  whose  father 
was  member  for  Devizes  for  several  years;  he  had  one  sister,  two 
years  older  than  himself,  but  she  died  when  he  was  only  nine  and 
was  buried  in  Stratford-on-Avon  Church.  My  grandfather  had  a 
house  called  the  College,  in  Stratford-on-Avon,  and  about  1,000 
acres  in  the  neighbourhood,  which  was  left  to  him  by  his  aunt, 
Mrs.  Kendal,  whose  picture  was  over  the  door  in  the  dining  room 
in  my  day. 

My  father  was  sent  to  school  at  Putney  when  he  was  about 
eight,  and  his  companion  in  his  bedroom  was  Lord  Courtenay, 
afterwards  Earl  of  Devon.1  His  sister,  Lady  Catherine  Berens, 
told  me,  when  I met  her  at  Oxford  in  1846,  that  she  was  a great 
friend  of  my  mother’s  and  of  aunt  Sophy’s.  My  father  went  to 
Westminster  in  1789  and  left  in  1793,  being  then  the  third  boy 
in  the  sixth  form;  and  his  parents  took  him  to  Oxford  and  entered 
him  as  a commoner  at  Christ  Church,  being  then  not  16.  In  that 
year,  he  paid  his  first  visit  to  his  aunt,  Mrs.  Finch,  at  Thrybergh, 
with  his  parents.  Soon  after,  his  father  had  an  attack  of  palsy, 
and  he  lived  chiefly  in  London,  in  a house  he  had  in  Upper  Brook 
Street;  but  in  the  summer  they  went  to  Brighton,  Weymouth  and 
Tunbridge  Wells,  where  they  had  the  best  society. 

His  parents  were  anxious  that  my  father  should  have  an 
independent  home  of  his  own,  so  he  was  induced  to  become  a 
candidate  for  a Fellowship  at  All  Souls  when  he  had  been  three 
years  at  Christ  Church,  and  was  duly  elected.  His  most  intimate 
friends  had  preceded  him  there  the  year  or  two  years  before;  I 
think  they  were  Lord  Talbot,2  Mr.  Levett3  and  Dr.  Milner,4 
afterwards  Rector  of  Thrybergh.  They  were  all  older  than  my 
father,  and  two  years  before  he  died,  Lord  Talbot,  my  father  and 
Mr.  Levett  dined  together  at  the  house  of  the  last,  and  I was 
there  too.  My  father  was  very  fond  of  hunting  and  one  year  he 
mentions  he  stopped  for  hunting  at  Lord  Talbot’s  in  Staffordshire, 
then  went  on  to  Lord  Man  vers, 5 in  Nottinghamshire  and  then  to 

1 William  Courtenay  (1777-1859),  29th  Earl  of  Devon:  son  of  Henry 
Reginald,  Bishop  of  Exeter;  ed.  Westminster  and  Christ  Church;  barrister, 
bankruptcy  commissioner,  Tory  M.P.  for  Exeter,  1812-26  and  Assistant 
Clerk  of  Parliament,  1826-35;  succeeded  his  third  cousin,  for  whom  the 
title  had  been  revived  in  1831  (despite  his  bad  claim),  in  1835. 

2 Charles  Chetwynd-Talbot,  3rd  Earl  Talbot  (1777-1849),  of  Ingestre 
Hall;  educ.  Christ  Church;  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Staffs.,  Lord  Lieutenant  of 
Ireland  (1817-21),  K.G.,  1844;  large  Tory  landowner  and  agricultural 
improver  in  Staffs.,  etc.;  father  of  the  18th  Earl  of  Shrewsbury. 

3 Probably  Theophilus  Levett  (d.1839),  of  Wychnor  Park,  Staffs. 

4 The  Rev.  Henry  Stephen  Milner,  D.D.,  T.P.,  Rector  of  Thrybergh 
from  1811. 

5 Charles  Pierrepoint,  1st  Earl  Manvers  (1737-1816);  naval  captain. 
Whig  M.P.  for  Notts.,  1778-96;  inherited  estates  of  Duke  of  Kingston, 
1773;  cr.  Viscount  Newark,  1796,  Earl  Manvers,  1806;  his  seat  was  Thoresby 
Park,  Notts. 


the  Duke  of  Leeds’,1  about  ten  miles  from  Thrybergh,  where  he 
again  visited  Mrs.  Finch,  and  then  returned  to  London.  He  went 
with  his  parents  that  summer  to  Tunbridge  Wells,  where  he  made 
the  acquaintance  of  my  mother  with  her  mother  and  father,  Mr.  and 
Lady  Elizabeth  Townsend,2  who  invited  him  to  Honnington  the  next 
time  he  went  to  Stratford-on-Avon  to  collect  the  rents  for  his  father. 

While  on  one  of  these  visits,  he  heard  of  his  father’s  illness 
and  posted  immediately  to  London,  riding  from  Oxford,  the 
quickest  way  in  those  days.  The  illness  ended  fatally  in  May, 
1800,  and  he  then  devoted  himself  to  his  mother,  and  went  with 
her  to  her  brother’s,  General  Garth,  in  Dorsetshire.  She  finally 
took  a house  two  miles  from  Windsor  and  sold  the  house  in 
London.  Here  he  met  my  mother  again,  when  she  was  staying 
at  her  uncle’s,  Mr.  Windsor’s,  at  Braywick,  and  soon  after  they 
were  engaged.  My  father  then  took  Barford  Hall,  about  seven 
miles  from  Honnington,  for  his  mother;  and  after  his  marriage 
she  continued  to  live  with  them  till  her  death.  Mrs.  Finch  then 
requested  him  to  come  and  live  at  Bramley  and  look  after  things 
at  Thrybergh,  which  he  did  and  gave  up  Barford  Hall.  When 
Mrs.  Finch  died,  she  left  everything  to  my  great  uncle  Weston  at 
Horsley,  except  a handsome  legacy  to  my  father;  but  uncle  Weston 
sent  for  my  father  and,  saying  he  had  no  wish  to  live  in  Yorkshire, 
gave  up  the  whole  of  the  property  to  him  at  once.3 

In  1808,  my  father  was  made  High  Sheriff  of  Warwickshire, 
but  as  he  had  then  come  to  live  in  Yorkshire,  after  the  first 
Assizes  he  deputed  uncle  Tom  Townsend  to  act  for  him;  and 
when,  after  two  or  three  years,  he  was  nominated  as  High  Sheriff 
for  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire,  his  former  appointment  in 
Warwickshire  served  as  an  excuse  for  his  standing  (down).  After 
Mrs.  Finch’s  death,  it  was  found  that  the  old  Hall  was  quite 
unsafe  to  live  in  and  that  it  would  cost  more  to  repair  it  than  to 
build  a new  house;  besides,  the  situation  was  so  bad,  the  principal 
room  looking  into  the  Church  yard  and  the  supply  of  water  so 
deficient.4  In  1810  and  1811,  a fall  of  timber  was  therefore 
ordered,  to  the  amount  of  £11,600,  and  Mr.  Webb  was  chosen  to 
be  architect  and  decided  upon  the  present  site  to  build  upon; 
and  in  1813  or  1814  they  took  possession  of  the  new  house.5  My 

1 George  William  Frederick  Osborne,  6th  Duke  of  Leeds  (1775-1838); 
Lord  Lieutenant  of  North  Riding,  Master  of  the  Horse,  K.G.  (1827);  suc- 
ceeded to  West  Riding  properties  of  the  Baronies  of  Conyers  and  Darcy 
through  his  mother. 

2 Louisa  (1782-1818),  daughter  of  Gore  Townsend  of  Honnington  Hall, 
Warwicks.,  and  his  wife.  Lady  Elizabeth,  daughter  of  the  4th  Earl  of 
Plymouth;  she  married  John  Fullerton  on  10  Dec.  1801  and  bore  him  eight 

3 Mrs.  Finch  died  in  1803;  Weston,  her  brother,  died  unmarried. 

4 Two  original  sketches  of  the  old  hall,  by  Dr.  Nathaniel  Johnston, 
the  antiquary,  are  in  the  Sheffield  Central  Library. 

5 The  new  Hall  was  a turretted  and  battlemented  Gothic  edifice, 
illustrated  in  its  original  condition  in  Rev.  F.  O.  Morris:  Picturesque  Views 
of  the  Seats  of  the  Noblemen  and  Gentlemen  of  Great  Britain  (Leeds:  n.d.), 
Yol.  I,  p.  33. 



mother  died  at  Buxton,  in  May,  1818,  when  I was  a year  and 
five  months  old;  she  had  been  ailing  for  some  time  (and)  went 
there  at  the  physician's  request,  but  the  journey  was  too  fatiguing 
for  her,  and  she  died  in  a few  days. 

These  memorandums  to  1815  are  from  a written  account  of 
my  father’s,  found  in  a drawer  after  his  death  but  (which)  had 
never  been  mentioned  to  any  one  of  us.  (It  was)  left  off  abruptly; 
he  evidently  intended  to  finish  it.  It  was  written  in  1818  after 
my  mother’s  death,  with  a loving  account  of  all  her  virtues  and 
goodness  and  many  more  particulars  of  his  life.  Of  course,  I, 
born  February  12,  1815,  can  remember  nothing  till  about  1823, 
except  visions  of  uncles  and  aunts  coming  from  Honnington. 
But  in  1823,  when  my  brother  Jack  came  of  age,  I have  distant 
recollections  of  the  ball  and  guards  of  yeomanry  that  night  and 
large  dinner  parties  to  the  Yeomanry  amongst  others.  In  1868,  I 
met  an  old  lady  at  Rugby,  a Mrs.  Isham,  who  told  me  she  was 
at  that  Ball  with  a party  from  Sir  George  Cooke’s  at  Wheatby; 
she  was  then  a Miss  Murray,  daughter  of  Sir  Alexander  Murray.1 

My  father  had  a house  in  Cumberland  Street  (Bryanston 
Square),  for  a few  years  (but  gave  it  up  in  1826),  where  we  went 
every  year  for  two  or  three  months,  my  sister  Horatia  being  a 
great  invalid  and  requiring  constant  advice  from  Doctors.2  My 
father  used  to  drive  her  out  in  his  phaeton  every  day  into  the 
country  to  Hampstead  or  elsewhere  for  two  hours,  before  he 
went  for  his  ride,  or  to  take  my  eldest  sister  out.  My  father  hunted 
regularly  and  often  stayed  for  hunting  at  Lord  Manvers’  and  Mr. 
Tribeck’s  in  Nottinghamshire,  and  my  eldest  sister  accompanied 
him;  but  at  Christmas  he  was  always  at  home  and  on  S.  Thomas’s 
Day,  crowds  of  old  and  young  women  used  to  come  from  our 
village  and  from  Bramley,  Denaby,  Kilnhurst  and  Mexbro,  to 
receive  blankets  or  clothing,  beef  and  corn.  There  was  always  a 
Devon  ox  killed  out  of  the  Park  and  the  farmers  had  to  weigh  out 
certain  portions  of  wheat.  Several  poor  widows  had  5/-  each,  the 
home  labourers  always  had  linen  for  a shirt  and  flannel  for  a 
waistcoat  and  their  wives  had  (the)  choice  of  a blanket  or  flannel 
and  calico,  and  always  a brown  stuff  or  camlet  gown.  My  sister 
had  a book  to  write  their  names  in,  and  when  I was  old  enough 
I gave  away  the  bundles  to  each  as  they  came  in;  this  used  to 
take  us  from  half  past  nine  or  ten  till  three  in  the  afternoon  on 
the  21st  and  22nd.3 

1 Charlotte  Elizabeth  Murray,  daughter  of  Sir  Patrick  Murray,  6th 
baronet,  married  the  Rev.  Arthur  Isham,  Rector  of  Weston  Turvill,  Bucks., 
in  1840.  Sir  George  Cooke,  7th  baronet,  owned  some  3,600  acres  at  Wheatley 
Hall,  Doncaster. 

2 Horatia  Sophia,  John  Fullerton’s  third  daughter,  died  unmarried  in 


3 The  eldest  of  Fullerton’s  four  daughters  was  Anna,  who  married 
George  Ramsden,  of  Conisborough,  and  died  in  1837;  the  second  was 
Elizabeth,  who  married  Henry  Pickard  of  Hooton  Hall  and  Sturminster 
Marshall  and  died  in  1854. 


We  always  had  a Ball  to  dance  the  old  year  out  and  the 
new  year  in  every  year  but  one,  till  my  brother  Weston’s  death 
(not  after).1  Some  of  my  father’s  acquaintances  lived  15  or  16 
miles  off  to  whom  invitations  were  sent,  and  all  came,  it  did  not 
signify  how  bad  the  weather,  sure  of  receiving  a cordial  welcome 
from  him. 

The  house  was  generally  full  from  Christmas  till  the  9th 
February,  with  sons  and  daughters,  grandchildren,  and  nephews 
and  nieces,  but  after  the  8th  February,  my  father’s  birthday,  we 
were  all  quiet  till  June,  when  we  went  into  Warwickshire  to  pay 
visits,  and  sometimes  to  London  for  three  weeks,  and  then  returned 
home  for  haymaking.  My  father  was  devoted  to  his  farms  and 
never  liked  to  leave  home  till  the  turnips  were  sown,  and  then 
back  again  for  the  hay,  Quarter  Sessions,  etc.,  for  he  was  most 
particular  in  attending  them  and  the  magistrates’  meeting  every 
Monday,  unless  he  had  a very  bad  fit  of  gout;  and  also  the  Board 
of  Guardians.  When  the  new  workhouse  was  built  at  Rotherham, 
he  insisted  on  having  one  wing  built  for  3 or  6 couples  who  were 
thoroughly  respectable,  but  obliged  to  go  into  the  House,  saying 
they  should  not  be  separated.  Many  people  said  it  was  against 
the  rules,  but  he  would  have  it  so  while  he  was  chairman. 

My  father  was  most  particular  in  going  to  Church  mornings 
and  afternoons.  It  did  not  signify  how  wet  the  weather  was,  we 
never  had  the  carriage  out,  till  my  sister  became  too  lame  to 
walk,  but  took  boots  and  stockings  with  us  to  change  at  the 
Rectory,  before  going  into  the  Church,  and  had  camlet  cloaks  to 
throw  over  our  other  things.  If  the  servants,  but  one,  were  not 
in  Church  before  the  service  began,  they  were  told  that  if  they 
were  late  again,  they  should  not  have  the  annual  treat  of  going 
to  the  Doncaster  Races,  when  Lambert  always  drove  them  in  the 
cab  phaeton,  which  held  8 altogether,  including  the  coachman  and 
footman,  so  that  eight  went  on  Tuesday  and  eight  on  Thursday, 
and  were  home  by  7 o’clock. 

From  about  1823  to  1836  there  was  cricket  twice  a week  in 
the  evenings  for  the  villagers,  in  which  my  brother  joined,  and 
once  in  the  summer  a band  would  come  from  Swinton  and  there 
would  be  a dance  for  the  villagers  and  servants  till  9 o’clock. 
The  last  was  on  the  day  of  the  Queen’s  Coronation,  when  my 
father  danced  a few  turns  of  the  country  dance  with  Mrs.  Whit- 
taker and  I with  Mr.  Whittaker,  George’s  uncle.2 

1 Weston,  second  son  of  John  Fullerton,  married  Charlotte,  daughter 
of  the  Rev.  T.  Trebeck,  Rector  of  Chirley,  Sussex,  and  was  father  of 
Admiral  Sir  John  Fullerton  (1840-1918)  and  grandfather  of  Admiral  Sir 
E.  J.  A.  Fullerton.  Thomas,  the  third  son,  died  in  1825  and  Arthur,  the 
youngest,  became  the  Rector  of  Thrybergh.  John  (1802-1871)  inherited 
the  estate. 

2 White’s  History  and  Directory  of  Sheffield,  with  Rotherham,  etc.  (1833) 
lists  A.  J.  and  William  Whitaker  as  farmers  at  Thrybergh.  In  1856,  J. 
Whittaker,  a Thrybergh  cattle  dealer,  was  murdered  at  Dalton.  I am 
indebted  to  Mr.  L.  G.  Lovell,  Chief  Librarian  of  Rotherham,  for  these 



My  father  took  me  two  years  to  Haines  Hill,  Captain  Garth’s, 
for  Ascot  Races,  but  that  was  before  the  railroad  was  made  and 
such  crowds  of  people  as  there  are  now.  The  first  year  we  went, 
people  stopped  in  their  carriages,  which  were  drawn  up  by  the 
side  of  the  railings  of  the  course,  and  a very  pretty  sight  it  was 
to  see  the  Royal  carriages  drive  up  the  course,  and  a number  of 
nice  turn  outs,  carriages  with  four  horses,  and  outriders,  belonging 
to  the  nobility  and  gentry  round,  all  so  quiet  and  orderly,  not  the 
rabble  it  is  now.  The  second  time  we  went  was  in  1845  and  then 
we  had  to  go  in  the  Grandstand  as  the  railroad  was  open  part  of 
the  way  from  London  and  brought  down  a good  many  more 

My  father  always  went  out  with  the  Yeomanry  at  Doncaster, 
of  which  he  was  Lt.  Colonel,  the  last  week  in  September,  till 
three  years  before  he  died,  when  riding  hurt  his  knees  and  he 
retired,  much  to  the  regret  of  the  regiment.  I cannot  remember 
the  year  when  he  was  presented  by  them  with  a very  handsome 
silver  tea  service,  with  an  inscription,  but  I think  it  must  have 
been  in  1827.  Alas!  it  was  all  melted  down  when  the  pantry  was 
on  fire  in  1872,  I think,  when  my  eldest  brother  was  living  at 
Thrybergh.  The  silver  ought  to  have  been  put  in  the  iron  closet, 
but  the  butler  left  it  in  the  cupboard  and  a candle  shut  up 
in  it. 

My  father  was  presented  with  his  portrait,  by  his  tenants 
and  others  in  about  the  year  1838,  but  it  is  not  a good  likeness. 
The  Sheffield  and  Rotherham  people  particularly  requested  that 
a native  of  the  former  place  might  be  employed,  and  he,  poor  man, 
was  so  anxious  to  make  a good  likeness,  he  would  not  let  anyone 
come  into  the  room,  which  was  partly  darkened,  so  that  my 
father  used  to  say  he  could  scarcely  keep  awake,  whereas  if  my 
father  had  been  allowed  to  have  someone  to  talk  to,  the  expression 
of  his  mouth  would  have  been  quite  different;  and  it  was  such  a 
long  business,  there  were  so  many  sittings  required. 

To  show  how  freely  my  father  was  respected  and  beloved 
by  all  grades  of  society,  at  the  time  of  the  great  Chartist 
rising  (I  think  1836),  several  houses  in  our  neighbourhood 
and  beyond  Sheffield  belonging  to  Magistrates  were  marked 
on  the  paper  signed  at  the  leader’s  house,  after  to  be  blown 
up,  but  Thrybergh  was  not  on  the  list;  no  one  would  have 
hurt  him  or  his  house.  Our  near  neighbours  at  Ravenfield1 
had  their  clothes  packed  in  bundles  all  ready  for  flight  several 
nights,  and  one  night  my  father  was  sent  for  after  he  had 
gone  to  bed,  to  read  the  Riot  Act  at  Rotherham,  but  the 

1 Thomas  Bosville  (1799-1877),  son  of  R.  N.  Lee,  took  the  name  of 
Bosville  by  Royal  Licence  in  1829,  on  inheriting  the  Ravenfield  Park  and 
Thorpe  Hall  estates  from  his  cousin.  He  owned  almost  9,000  acres  in  all 
three  Ridings. 



Yeomanry  had  cleared  the  streets,  as  soon  as  he  arrived.1 

How  I wish  we  had  saved  all  the  letters  we  received  after 
his  death,  but  I have  only  one,  written  to  myself  by  Lord  Talbot, 
a very  kind  one.  Lord  Fitzwilliam’s2  to  my  brother  Arthur  was 
most  kind,  saying  “what  a loss  he  was;  as  a friend,  a neighbour, 
a magistrate  and  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Guardians,  he  was 
invaluable” — but  all  wrote  the  kindest  letters  showing  how  much 
he  was  esteemed  and  regretted. 

It  was  in  1813,  when  out  with  the  Yeomanry  in  Doncaster, 
(that)  he  established  the  agricultural  meetings  there,  which  have 
continued  ever  since,  and  we  used  to  have  a ploughing  match  at 
Thrybergh  and  friends  from  Nottinghamshire  used  to  bring 
turnips  and  mangles  to  show.  My  father  liked  to  have  good  cart 
horses,  and  was  proud  of  his  team  of  four  chestnuts,  entrusted  to 
the  care  of  his  two  best  ploughmen,  of  whom  Matthew  Speight 
was  chief. 

He  made  a point  of  employing  local  tradesmen  and  only 
procured  tea  and  coffee  from  London.  Except  when  we  had 
company,  we  had  always  the  plainest  dinners.  My  father  being 
very  abstemious,  plain  roast  or  boiled  meat  or  chicken,  a glass  of 
home  brewed  small  beer  and  two  or  three  glasses  of  sherry  were 
all  he  allowed  himself.  He  never  allowed  us  champagne,  except 
on  a birthday  and  New  Year’s  Day;  he  never  drank  it  himself. 
There  was  ale  for  those  who  liked  it  and  sometimes  claret  for 
friends.  His  breakfast  consisted  of  the  crust  of  a hot  roll  and  a 
little  butter,  a boiled  egg  and  a cup  of  tea  or  coffee.  I do  not 
think  I ever  saw  bacon  or  hot  meat  of  any  kind  on  the  table  in 
my  day,  but  there  were  always  hams,  cold  chicken  or  brawn  on 
the  sideboard  for  those  who  liked  it.  His  luncheon  was  a few 
small  sandwiches  of  cold  beef,  which  I always  cut,  and  a glass  of 
sherry  in  a little  bottle,  which  he  took  in  his  carriage,  for  he  went 
out  every  morning  to  his  farms  at  10  or  half-past  10,  except  on 
Mondays,  when  he  went  to  the  Magistrates’  meeting  and  was 
generally  out  all  day. 

My  father  usually  gave  away  all  the  haunches  of  venison 
and  was  very  thoughtful  of  others,  taking  them  himself  to  those 
who  were  not  well  off,  to  save  them  giving  half  a sovereign  to  the 
keeper,  which  he  would  expect.  We  only  kept  haunches  for  home 
use  at  the  time  of  the  Quarter  Sessions,  when  Magistrates  and 

1 Rotherham  was  the  scene  of  Reform  Bill  riots  in  1832,  rioting  by- 
Irish  railway  navvies  later  in  the  ’thirties  and  of  Chartist  plotting  in  1840. 
James  Allen  of  the  Station  Inn  reported  Sheffield  Chartist  conspirators  to 
Lord  Howard  of  Effingham.  Colonel  Fullerton  directed  Lieutenant  Shear- 
down  and  the  Hatfield  troop  to  escort  two  prisoners  to  Ferrybridge. 

(. Sheffield  and  Rotherham  Independent,  18  Jan.,  1840).  I am  indebted  to 
the  Rotherham  Librarian  and  to  Mr.  John  Bebbington,  City  Librarian  of 
Sheffield,  for  these  details. 

2 Charles  Wentworth  Fitzwilliam,  3rd  Earl  Fitzwilliam  (1786-1857), 
5th  Irish  Earl;  Whig  M.P.  Yorkshire,  1807-30  and  for  other  seats;  prominent 
advocate  of  Free  Trade,  a very  large  landowner  in  Yorkshire  and  Ireland 
and  owner  of  large  mineral  and  urban  properties. 



barristers  came  to  Thrybergh  for  two  or  three  days.  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Wrightson  of  Cusworth,1  Mr.  and  Lady  Elizabeth  Stanhope 
and  Mr.  Hugh  Stanhope2  almost  always  came  at  that  time,  and 
it  was  a thousand  pities  (that)  the  deer  were  done  away  with,  as 
the  sale  of  a few  bucks  at  the  time  of  the  Doncaster  races  would 
have  paid  the  keepers’  wages. 

My  father  was  master  of  the  Sandbeck  Hounds,  then  a 
subscription  pack,  between  the  time  of  John  Lord  Scarbro  and 
Richard  Lord  Scarbro,  the  one  between  them  being  lame  did  not 
hunt  but  kept  up  the  Rufford  Hounds  in  Notts.;3  and  my  father 
was  most  popular  as  M.F.H.  Many  a time  I had  to  draw  a little 
map  of  some  capital  run;  and  he  was  always  ready  to  indemnify 
the  farmers  for  the  foxes’  depredations  among  their  poultry.  He 
always  patronised  the  cricket  club  at  Doncaster  and  often  drove 
over  a party  of  gentlemen  to  join  it, — and  also  the  Archery  Clubs 
at  Doncaster  and  the  Tickhill  Castle  Club,  which  met  at  different 
gentlemen’s  houses  and  at  Roche  Abbey;  each  party  took  a 
hamper  of  provisions  and  wine  and  no  meeting  would  have  been 
perfect  without  Mr.  Fullerton.4 

I may  mention  here  that  besides  the  Thrybergh  estate,  my 
father  had  property  in  Kent,  as  well  as  in  Warwickshire,  but 
these  two  latter  properties  were  sold  many  years  ago,  I remember 
well,  to  pay  my  eldest  brother’s  bills  when  he  left  Stretton  and 

My  father  died  of  gout,  in  my  arms,  a sudden  spasm  in 
January,  1847;  but  he  had  been  very  poorly  for  three  or  four 
weeks  previously  and  my  sister  used  to  sit  up  every  night  till  about 
three  or  four  in  the  morning,  when  he  used  to  send  her  to  bed  and 
say  he  would  ring  if  he  wanted  anything.  I had  only  arrived 
from  Berkshire  three  days  before  he  died,  not  having  been  told 
how  ill  he  was;  he  would  not  let  Otia  (Horatia)  tell  me.  Happily, 
our  newly  built  rooms  at  East  Garston  were  not  fit  to  inhabit,  so 
we  wrote  and  asked  if  we  might  return  to  Thrybergh  for  two 

1 William  Battie  Wrightson  (1789-1879),  of  Cusworth  Park  and 
Warmsworth  Hall,  near  Doncaster  and  Hurworth  Manor,  Darlington;  J.P. 
and  Deputy  Lieutenant  of  the  West  Riding;  Liberal  M.P.  for  Hull,  183  0-32 
and  Northallerton,  1835-65;  owner  of  over  6,000  acres  in  Yorkshire,  North- 
umberland and  Durham.  His  papers  are  in  Leeds  City  Library. 

2 John  Spencer  Stanhope  (1787-1873),  of  Horsforth  Hall  and  Cannon 
Hall,  near  Barnsley,  married  Lady  Elizabeth  Wilhelmina  Coke,  daughter 
of  the  1st  Earl  of  Leicester;  Deputy  Lieutenant,  J.P.  and  F.R.S.;  owned 
over  11,000  West  Riding  acres.  His  eldest  son,  Sir  Walter,  was  Conservative 
M.P.  for  the  South  West  Riding  in  1872-1880. 

3 John,  7th  Earl  of  Scarbrough  (“Black  Jack”),  died  after  a hunting 
accident  near  Doncaster  in  1835  and  was  succeeded  by  his  Whig  son  John, 
the  father  of  several  illegitimate  children  to  whom  he  bequeathed  large 
estates  on  his  death  in  1856,  when  his  cousin  Richard  George  succeeded  as 
9th  Earl. 

4 Tickhill  Castle  was  the  seat  of  Frederick  Lumley-Savile,  grandson  of 
the  4th  Earl  of  Scarbrough  and  father  of  the  9th  Earl,  Richard  (1813- 
1884).  Roche  Abbey,  a Cistercian  ruin,  is  in  the  Earl’s  grounds  at  Sandbeck 


months,  so  I just  got  home  to  be  with  my  dear  father  the  last 
three  days  of  his  life,  tho’  I little  thought  his  end  was  so  near. 

He  had  eaten  his  breakfast,  which  I took  him  as  usual  about 
9 o’clock,  and  I had  given  him  his  books  in  bed,  as  he  did  not 
then  get  up  till  about  12;  and  about  10  o’clock,  old  Daniel  came 
for  me  crying  bitterly:  poor  old  man,  he  was  deeply  attached  to 
my  father  and  had  lived  with  him  45  years.  I sat  on  the  floor 
wrapping  my  father’s  feet  in  my  petticoats,  as  he  had  got  up,  but 
the  pain  got  worse  and  he  tried  to  get  into  bed,  but  had  to  be 
assisted  and  placed  in  my  arms  and  died  instantly. 

Colonel  John  Fullerton  died  on  19  January,  1847,  and  his 
estates  at  Thrybergh  and  Brinsworth  passed  to  his  eldest  son, 
John,  the  hero  of  the  village  cricket  matches.  Twenty  years  pre- 
viously, he  had  married  his  cousin,  Louisa,  fourth  daughter  of 
Sir  Gray  Skipwith,  baronet,  of  Newbold  Hall,  Warwickshire,  by 
Harriet  Townsend.  John  Fullerton  died  in  1871  and  his  wife  in 
1875,  having  had  four  sons  and  seven  daughters.  The  estate  fell 
to  the  eldest  son,  Thomas  Gray  Fullerton,  an  old  Etonian  and 
graduate  of  Christ  Church  with  artistic  tastes,  who  married 
Euphemia  Margaret,  daughter  of  the  Reverend  Dr.  Henry 
Worsley,  and  died  without  issue  in  1881 . His  brother,  the  Reverend 
Charles  Garth  Fullerton,  succeeded.  For  twenty  years  the  Rector 
of  Boothby  Graffoe  near  Lincoln,  he  had  married  Catharine  Lucy, 
daughter  of  the  Reverend  Arthur  Kenney-Herbert,  Rector  of 
Bourton  in  Warwickshire,  and  had  three  sons  and  two  daughters. 
In  1890,  he  was  succeeded  by  his  eldest  son,  Colonel  John  Skip- 
with Herbert  Fullerton,  a notable  sportsman  and  the  last  of  the 
family  to  live  at  Thrybergh  Park.  Colonel  Fullerton  married  the 
daughter  of  Robert  Couldwell  Clarke  of  Noblethorpe  Hall,  near 
Barnsley,  thus  uniting  two  landowning  and  mineral-owning 
families.  Other  members  of  the  family  had  distinguished  careers 
in  the  Royal  Navy  and  in  the  Diplomatic  Corps. 

Thrybergh  prospered  in  the  nineteenth  century  from  the 
rich  coal  seams  under  the  estate’s  surfaces,  but  industry  gradually 
asserted  its  rough  features  over  the  landscape.  New  mines  brought 
new  scars  to  the  face  of  the  countryside.  And  as  the  Yorkshire 
scene  changed,  the  social  order  altered  with  it.  Along  with  many 
other  Yorkshire  gentry,  the  Fullertons  left  their  house;  and 
Thrybergh  Park,  the  seat  of  the  Norman  Reresbies,  the  proud 
Saviles  and  four  generations  of  Fullertons,  descended  to  the 
status  of  a golf  course. 



RIDING  1586. 

By  Michael  Chadwick. 

In  the  course  of  research  into  the  Bretton  Hall  archives  in 
co-operation  with  Mr.  John  Addy,  a letter,  dated  1586,  was  dis- 
covered from  the  Earl  of  Huntingdon  to  the  Justices  of  the 
Peace  for  the  West  Riding  which  contained  instructions  as  to  the 
measures  to  be  taken  to  put  the  county  into  a state  of  defence  in 
the  event  of  trouble  with  Spain.  Mr.  Addy  suggested  that  I should 
transcribe  this  and  prepare  it  for  publication. 

Earlier  in  the  year  1586,  Anthony  Babington,  a friend  and 
admirer  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  had  plotted  to  bring  about  the 
murder  of  Elizabeth  which  was  to  be  followed  by  a general  rising 
of  the  Roman  Catholics  in  England  and  the  release  of  Mary  from 
prison.  Walsingham  had  intercepted  the  correspondence  and 
transcribed  the  letters,  before  forwarding  them  to  their  destina- 
tion. On  August  4th,  1586,  the  leading  associate  of  Babington, 
one  John  Ballard,  was  arrested  and  the  whole  plot  collapsed, 
leading  to  the  arrest  of  Anthony  Babington  by  the  end  of  August. 
The  letter  of  instruction  from  the  Earl  of  Huntingdon,  President 
of  the  Council  of  the  North,  is  dated  September  7th,  1586,  so  that 
no  time  had  been  lost  in  taking  such  measures  as  were  thought 
necessary.  The  letter  is  transcribed  in  full  and,  viewed  in  the 
light  of  the  above,  is  almost  self  explanatory: — 

Whereas  there  is  a comission  of  lyvetenancie  directed  unto  me 
from  Her  Majesty,  for  these  north  partes,  as  is  not  unknowne  to  you  by 
reason  of  the  late  publicacion  thereof  here  in  this  Cyttie.  (York)  And 
that  her  Majesty  consydering  how  necessarye  it  is  to  have  certain 
forces  put  in  a redyness  through  the  whole  realm  for  the  defence  of  her 
highness  person  and  estate  in  these  troublesome  dayes  1 hath  signified 
her  pleasure  unto  me  by  letters  from  the  Lordes  of  her  Majesties 
Privie  counsell.  That  by  virtue  of  the  said  Comission  I should  as  sone 
as  convenientlie  maybe  cause  the  number  of  6,000  footmen,  received, 
enrolled  and  put  in  readiness  with  their  convenient  furniture,  viz.— 
2,000  Callever,  2,000  pickmen  with  corselettes,  1,000  billmen  with 
clene  revett  or  Jack;  And  as  manye  bowes  with  sheves  of  arrows  and 
such  other  furniture  as  hath  bene  in  such  service  accustomed.  These 
therefore  shalbe  to  require  you  and  by  vertue  of  the  said  Comission  to 
will  and  commande  you  and  everye(one)  of  you,  that  with  all  care 
and  expedicion  you  provide  to  the  performance  of  such  directions  and 
instructions  as  you  shall  receyve  now  from  me  for  the  better  affecting 
and  accomplishing  of  the  service. 

1 This  is  a reference  to  the  plot  and  the  danger  that  may  come  from 



It  is  not  unknowne  to  you,  that  were  of  late  with  me,  that  of 
these  6,000  footmen  which  are  to  be  levyed  within  the  whole  countie, 
2,400  were  for  this  service,  by  common  consente  and  agreements  of  the 
Justices  then  with  me,  allotted  and  proportioned  to  the  Westridinge 
which  is  after  the  rate  of  12/10  and  8;  of  which  2,400  it  was  thought 
convenyente  that  those  should  be  400  callevers,  1200  pikemen,  400 
billmen  and  400  bowmen.  First  therefore  you  shall  understand  that 
now  at  your  meeting  you  are  to  divide  the  said  2,400  into  the  severall 
wapentakes  of  that  riding  with  as  much  discerninge  and  circumspection  as 
may  be,  which  I doubt  not,  but  you  will  easelye  agree  upon  knowing  your 
ordynarie  divisions  heretofore  upon  the  like  service.  Y ou  shall  also  under- 
stand if  it  is  thought  mete  and  so  commanded  by  my  said  letter,  (that) 
if  the  said  number  is  to  be  chosen  out  of  persons  dwelling  and  residing 
in  the  Shire  being  of  ability  to  furnish  themselves  or  any  other  at  the 
charge  of  the  county,  and  if  the  persons  upon  whome  you  shall  impose 
this  charge  may  be  men  willing  and  redy  to  undergo  and  perform  the 
service  you  are  to  signify  unto  them  it  is  intended  not  to  send  them 
imployed  in  any  furayne  service  but  for  the  defence  of  themselves  and 
the  country 1 if  any  attempt  should  happen  to  be  made.  And  my 
meaning  is,  now  this  harvest  time  not  to  have  any  musters  mayd 
(except  some  new  commandment  or  new  occasion  do  happen)  but  that 
this  service  shalbe  performed  with  as  little  trouble  or  grief  to  our 
subjects  as  maybe. 

I would  require  you  after  you  have  divided  the  said  numbers  of  2,400 
into  your  severall  wapentakes  (aforesayd)  you  will  draw  yourselves  to- 
gether according  to  your  severall  divisions  and  have  conference  amongst 
yourselves  and  sett  down  such  as  you  shall  think  fitt  to  impose  this 
charge  upon,  which  if  you  shall  not  be  able  to  perform,  if  it  is  your 
first  meeting,  then  I will  require  you  to  agree  amongst  yourselves  of  a 
date  and  place  of  meeting  with  your  severall  divisions  and  that  with 
as  much  speede  as  may  be.  And  in  case  you  shall  think  it  convenient 
for  the  better  and  more  spedy  accomplishment  of  this  service  to  have 
for  your  assistance  and  help  of  one  or  ii  of  any  towne  within  your 
devision,  is  to  be  by  their  meanes  the  better  informed  of  the  ability 
and  sufficiency  of  some  such  men  as  you  do  not  well  knowe,  you  may 
dearect  your  preseptes  to  such  persons  as  you  shall  thinke  to  use  them 
(and)  it  befalleth  them  to  appeare  before  you  at  the  Day  and  place 
which  you  shall  appoint  for  the  purpose  in  your  severall  devisions.  And 
in  case  any  within  your  devision  shall  refuse  to  performe  the  charge 
which  you  shall  think  fytt  to  impose  upon  them  for  the  furniture  either 
of  caliver,  picke,  bill  or  bowe,  I would  require  you  to  certifye  unto  me 
the  names  of  such  persons  so  refusinge  that  further  orders  may  be 
taken  with  them  accordinge  to  the  qualitie  of  their  contempts.  And 
when  you  have  sett  downe  the  names  of  the  persons  with  their  severall 
weapons  accordynge  to  the  number  allotted  by  you  to  the  severall 
wapentakes  or  divysions  I would  require  you  to  make  a Booke  of  their 
names  and  of  the  weapons  they  shall  be  appoynted  to  serve  2 withall. 
And  so  sende  the  same  unto  me  under  your  hande  as  sone  as  it  shalbe 
donne  which  I require  with  all  expedycion.  And  forthat  I am  in  doubte 
that  some  of  the  persons  that  you  shall  charge  with  this  service  will 
be  found  unprovided  and  furnished  of  such  armour  and  weapons  as 
shall  be  appoynted  unto  them,  I would  require  you  to  understand 
which  of  them  are  furnished  and  which  are  not  and  assyn  the  parte 
unfurneshed  a daye  and  that  with  as  much  speede  as  maybe,  for  to 
provide  armor  and  weapons  unto  him  if  he  will  make  provision  thereof 

1 The  foreign  service  at  this  time  meant  either  assisting  the  Dutch 
in  their  revolt  against  the  Duke  of  Parma  and  the  Spanish  forces  or  in 
keeping  order  in  Ireland. 

2 The  book  of  names  together  with  a list  of  each  man’s  weapons  is 
attached  to  the  letter  and  is  a copy  of  the  return  made  to  the  Earl  at  York. 



himselfe.  Or  if  he  had  rather  have  it  provided  for  him,  so  appoynt  him 
what  sume  of  money  he  is  to  disburse  and  have  in  redenesse  against 
such  tyme  as  the  said  armor  and  weapons  shalbe  provided  for  him, 
which  sum  is  to  be  putt  downe  according  to  the  charge  of  weapons 
that  is  appoynted;  so  I maye  knowe  what  number  is  allredye  within 
your  severall  wapentakes,  furnished  or  willbe  furnished  by  the  daye  to 
be  appoynted  and  what  number  doe  desyre  to  haveprovision  of  armor 
and  weapons  made  for  them.  Wherefore  I desire  to  have  a particular 
certificate  within  your  severall  devysions  that  order  may  be  taken  for 
the  provision  of  the  same  accordingly. 

I have  also  thought  good  to  require  you  that,  in  the  deviding  of 
this  2,400  footmen  into  the  severall  wapentakes  of  your  ryddinge,  you 
doe  not  medle  with  the  cittye  and  annestye  of  Yorke  for  my  meaning 
is  that  of  the  said  number  of  2,400  to  dearecte  a comission  myself  to 
the  saide  cittye  for  the  furnishing  of  300  whereof  Caliver  150/pickmen 
90/  billmen  30/  and  bowmen  30/  which  I have  thought  convenient  to 
signifie  unto  you  that  you  maye  conveniently  knowe  what  number  you 
are  to  devide  into  the  rest  of  the  Wapentake  viz.:  2,100  whereof 
Callivers  250/  Pickmen  1,100/  billmen  370  and  bowmen  370/.  You 
shall  further  understand  that  her  majesties  pleasure  is  that  there 
should  also  be  600  horsemen  putt  in  a redyness  within  this  countye 
whereof  400  to  be  made  amongste  the  gentlemen  and  welthier  farmers 
and  others  of  abylitye.  My  meaning  is  not  that  you  shoulde  doubte 
the  said  horsemen  at  this  instant.  This  onelye  I doe  nowe  require  of 
you  for  this  Service,  that  I may  have  a perfect  certificate  from  you  of 
all  the  gentlemen  resydinge  within  your  severall  divisions  and  also  of 
the  welthye  farmers  and  others  of  best  abilitye  that  are  not  charged 
with  the  service  of  footmen. 1 

I am  able  to  put  you  in  remembrance  and  voyce  earnestlye  to 
require  you  to  take  present  order  that,  accordynge  to  the  accustomed 
manner,  good  and  substanciall  watches  be  kepett  in  the  townes  and 
places  of  strange  faces,  to  staye  all  suspected  persons  that  would  passe. 
And  so  to  certifie  me  what  beacons  there  are  within  your  severall 
divisyons  and  in  what  state  and  repayre  they  be  for  service  as  occasyon 
should  require.  2 

And  for  that  manye  lewdlye  disposed  are  given  to  the  spredyng  of 
false  rumours  and  reports,  and  idle  and  vayne  newes  of  matters  either 
abrodde  or  at  home  whereby  many  incideynes  doe  appear  bothe  to  the 
dishonour  of  the  State  and  otherwise.  I doe  require  you  that  in  your 
severall  divysions  you  would  forme  due  regard  to  such  as  at  tymes  of 
faires  and  markets  and  other  assemblies  of  people  in  Innes  and  Ale- 
houses that  shall  give  out  any  matters  directlye  or  indirectlye  that 
may  tend  to  ye  despariggyng  of  the  State  or  mispreding  of  any  mis- 
information in  ye  peoples  mindes.  And  if  you  may  procede  more 
spedily  and  with  lest  difficulty  and  disagreement  for  your  division 
amongst  yourselves  in  the  execution  of  such  service  as  I have  soe 
appoynted  and  required  you  to  performe.  I do  send  you  a note 
published  with  my  hand  contayning  all  the  wapentakes  of  your 
rydding  and  the  names  of  all  such  gentlemen  as  I would  have  me 
serve  there  in  such  service  as  that  which  is  now  required  of  you.  And 
of  youre  gentlemen  which  are  sett  downe  I do  require  and  looke  to 
have  the  certificates  of  the  severall  wapentakes  in  which  you  are 
placed  by  the  said  note  and  of  such  services  as  are  to  be  downe  therein 
bothe  for  the  levyinge  of  men  and  otherwise,  wherein  I have  had  as 
great  regard  as  I wolde  for  the  plans.  If  your  habitations  should  either 

1 A list  of  all  the  gentlemen  and  wealthy  farmers  is  included  in  the 
record  together  with  the  number  of  horses  each  is  required  to  furnish. 

2 The  beacons  stations  in  Staincross  wapentake  were  at  High  Hoyland 
and  Monk  Bretton.  From  time  to  time  the  Justices  in  Quarter  Session 
levied  a rate  for  their  repair. 



be  within  the  wapentake  or  soe  neare  as  conveniently  might  (be)  to  the 
same  whereunto  you  are  by  my  note  appointed,  and  in  case  there  be 
any  error  therein  by  mistaking  of  any  of  your  habitations,  you  may 
now  reforme  the  same  by  agreement  amongst  your  selves,  but  soe  as  I 
may  knowe  to  whom  to  write  from  tyme  to  tyme  as  accasion  of  service 
may  occure  in  these  parts. 

Thus  requireing  you  as  you  are  to  do  good  service,  if  her  majestie 
provide,  effectually  and  spedely  in  the  performance  of  all  such  services 
as  you  are  by  this  my  letters  willed  to  do.  I do  committ  you  to  god, 
at  York,  the  7th  of  September  1586. 

Subscribed  thus  your  loving  friend, 

H.  Huntingdon. 

Post  Script. 

I have  the  greatest  good  to  knowe  that  you  are  not  in  serving, 
for  the  levying  or  furnishing  of  these  men  to  have  any  Regard  to  the 
subsidye  books  for  I doubt  nott  but  that  many  that  are  nott  in  the 
subsidye  books  are  off  abylyty  to  bear  part  of  this  Service  neither  wold 
I have  you  Charge  any  with  a fente  maner,  that  may  be  those  of 
abylyty  to  be  charged  with  a horse. 

Subscribed/H.  Huntingdon. 

The  names  of  the  men  whom  Henry  Huntingdon  nominated 
as  his  assistants,  in  the  various  wapentakes,  are  attached  to  this 
letter.  The  wapentake  of  Skyrack  had  for  its  leaders,  Sir  Thomas 
Danby,  Francis  Palmes,  Richard  Gascoigne,  James  Rich  and 
William  Vavasour.  For  Claro  division  the  three  men  appointed 
were  Sir  William  Mallory,  Sir  Thomas  Fairfax  and  Sir  Richard 
Malender.  The  two  small  wapentakes  of  Osgoldcross  and  Stain- 
cross  were  to  be  supervised  by  Sir  Cotton  Gargrave,  Thomas 
Wentworth,  Peter  Stanley,  George  Woodruffe  and  Gervase 
Neville.  That  of  Barkeston  Ash  was  to  have  Brian  Stapleton, 
George  Saville  and  Peter  Stanley  to  supervise  the  muster.  The 
Staincliffe  and  Ewcross  divisions  had  Robert  Tempest,  Thomas 
Talbot,  John  Lumb,  Brian  Plews  and  Lawrence  Lister  and  finally 
that  of  Agbrigg  and  Morley  was  to  be  supervised  by  Sir  Cotton 
Gargrave,  Robert  Bradford,  John  Kaye  and  Thomas  Saville. 

The  survey  of  the  parklands  of  the  West  Riding  was  under- 
taken for  the  Council  of  the  North  by  Lord  Darcy  and  his  report 
reveals  much  that  has  now  disappeared  and  also  gives  the  uses  to 
which  these  parks  were  put,  as  breeding  grounds  for  the  small 
horses  or  scantlings,  used  by  the  gentlemen  and  wealthy  farmers. 
Unfortunately  this  section  of  the  manuscript  has  been  very 
badly  damaged  by  water  and  mice  so  that  very  considerable  gaps 
occur  in  the  text.  That  which  is  legible  reads: — 

Wakefield — new  parke  contening  4 myles  in  compas with 

4 breeding  mares  of  bignes 

Calverley  park  containing  in  compass  2 myles but  no  mare. 

Wakefield — old  parke  in  compas  3 myles 3 breeding  mares. 

Sandal  Magna  the  parke  conteyns  in  compass  a myle  being  her 
majesties  .... 

Altofts  parke  contyns  a myle  and  being  her  majesties  and  in  the 
tenure  of  one  Bonney  who  haithe  in  the  same  one  mare  but  ...  of 
the  . . . appoynted  by  the  statutes  yet  she  haithe  a horse. 

Elland  Parke  being  the  inheritance  of  th’heires  of  Sir  Henry 
Saville  Knyght  deceased  and  in  the  tenure  of  Robert  Saville  of  Elland 



Hall  conteyning  in  compass  two  myles  or  thereabouts  but  haithe  in 
the  same  neither  horse  nor  mare  according  to  the  Statutes. 

Bolling  Park  the  inherytance  of  Robert  Tempest  esquire  con- 
teineth  in  compass  one  myle  and  a half  or  thereabouts  and  is  in  the 
occupation  of  the  said  Mr.  Tempest  but  haithe  neither  horse  nor  mare 
in  the  same. 

Denholme  park  the  inherytance  of  Sir  Robert  Saville  knyght  and 
in  his  own  tenure  and  conteineth  in  compass  seven  myles  or  thereabouts 
but  haithe  neither  horse  nor  mare  in  the  same. 

Emley  park  being  the  inherytance  of  the  heirs  of  Sir  Henry  Saville 
knight  deceased  and  in  the  tenure  of  George  Saville  esquire  conteinynge 
in  compass  five  myles  and  haith  in  the  same  breeding  mares  5 of  the 
scantlings  allowed  by  the  Statute. 

Thornhill  park  being  the  inherytance  of  the  heirs  of  Sir  Henry 
Saville  knight  deceased  and  in  the  tenure  of  the  Earl  of  Shrewsburie 
conteineth  in  compass  one  myle  and  haith  a breeding  mare  in  the  same. 

Tankersley  park  conteining  by  estimation  in  compasse  three  myles 
and  is  now  in  the  possession  of  the  honourable  George,  Earl  of  Shrews- 
burie and  there  is  one  sufficient  horse  and  three  mares  of  the  height 
and  according  to  the  Statute. 

The  muster  was  held  on  the  24th  October,  1586  when  all 
the  armour  and  men  were  reviewed  in  their  various  wapentakes. 
It  is  hoped  that  in  the  near  future  a complete  study  and  analysis 
of  the  muster  will  be  edited  and  published,  together  with  a list  of 
all  the  gentlemen  and  ‘wealthy'  farmers  who  were  assessed  for 



with  an  Appendix  on  Eighth- Century  Northumbrian 


By  Kenneth  Harrison. 

In  spite  of  a venerable  history  as  the  chief  town  of  North- 
umbria, York  is  poor  in  physical  remains  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
period.  The  crosses  and  sculptures  listed  by  Mr.  W.  G.  Colling- 
wood  [6,  pp.  129-131]  are  late  in  date  and  few  in  number.  Saxon 
masonry  can  be  discerned  in  four  churches:  St.  Cuthbert  (east 
wall),  St.  Mary  Castlegate  (dedication  stone),  St.  Mary  Bishophill 
Senior  (lower  courses  at  the  south-west  corner)1  and  Junior 
(tower).  With  these  relics,  which  will  be  surveyed  in  due  course 
by  the  Royal  Commission  on  Historical  Monuments,  we  shall  not 
now  be  concerned;  none  of  them,  except  the  tower  of  Bishophill 
Junior,  can  be  called  impressive  by  architectural  standards. 

By  contrast,  the  documentary  sources  are  rich  in  statements 
of  fact,  and  in  allusions  of  a useful  or  a nebulous  kind.  It  is  the 
purpose  of  this  article  to  collect  together,  and  discuss,  everything 
that  has  been  recorded  about  the  Saxon  buildings  of  York. 

City  Churches 

Domesday  Book  lists  eight  churches:  All  Saints  (Pavement), 
St.  Crux,  St.  Mary  (Castlegate),  St.  Cuthbert,  St.  Andrew,  St. 
Martin  (Coney  Street),  Holy  Trinity  (Micklegate),  and  one  other 
whose  dedication  is  not  specified  (perhaps  Bishophill  Junior). 
Also,  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  (D)  records  that  in  1055  Earl 
Siward  died  at  York  and  was  buried  in  the  mynster  at  Galmanho 
which  he  himself  had  built  and  consecrated  in  the  name  of  God 
and  St.  Olaf  [11,  p.  132].  The  name  Galmanho  represents  land  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Bootham  [33,  p.  288],  so  this  building  will 
have  stood  on,  or  close  to,  the  site  of  the  present  St.  Olave’s.  We 
can  thus  point  to  nine  churches  which  were  going  concerns  at  the 
time  of  the  Conquest.  If  Bishophill  Senior  is  added,  on  the 
strength  of  its  masonry,  the  total  becomes  ten;  and,  since  Domes- 
day Book  tends  to  mention  buildings  in  an  incidental  way,  there 
may  have  been  others;2  the  city  of  Norwich  appears  to  have 
contained  fifteen  churches  in  Edward  the  Confessor’s  time  [9, 
p.  139],  yet  it  was  a smaller  place  than  York  [36,  p.  76;  40,  p.  129]. 

1 The  unusual  character  of  this  work  seems  to  have  been  first  noticed 
by  Dr.  Eric  Gee. 

2 For  instance,  the  Conqueror  had  granted  the  churches  of  St.  Saviour 
and  St.  Michael  Spurriergate  to  St.  Mary's  Abbey  before  1087  [14,  pp.  64-5]; 
perhaps  they  were  pre-Conquest  foundations. 



Before  discussing  the  history  of  York  Minster,  and  that  of 
another  church,  four  doubtful  cases  must  be  considered: 

(a)  In  a poem  written  by  Alcuin,  about  780-782  [39,  p.  80], 
there  is  mention  of  a dedication  to  St.  Mary  [27,  p.  397,  v.  1605]. 
From  the  context  it  is  not  possible  to  decide  whether  this  was  a 
church  in  its  own  right,  or  a chapel  that  formed  part  of  a larger 

(b)  In  the  year  800  Alcuin  wrote  to  his  friend  and  pupil 
Calvinus,  who  was  an  inmate  of  the  cella  Sancti  Stephani  [12, 
No.  209,  p.  347].  The  whereabouts  of  this  small  religious  house 
are  not  known;  but  from  the  fact,  which  emerges  casually  in  the 
letter,  that  Calvinus  was  one  of  the  clergy  who  shared  in  the 
election  of  an  archbishop,  St.  Stephen’s  will  have  had  a very 
close  connexion  with  the  Minster,  and  may  have  been  situated  in 
York  itself.1 

(c)  Folcard  says,  in  his  life  of  St.  John  of  Beverley  (who 
became  bishop  in  705)  that  the  saint  was  wont  to  meditate  in  a 
church  of  St.  Michael  not  far  from  where  he  lived  [27,  p.  257]; 
but  little  weight  can  be  attached  to  the  word  of  a monk  of  Thorney 
writing  circa  1070,  particularly  because  there  may  be  confusion 
with  a chapel  of  St.  Michael,  near  Hexham,  which  appears  earlier 
in  the  story  [27,  p.  246]. 2 

(d)  A book  seen  by  Leland,  and  now  lost,  recorded  that  in 
King  Athelstan’s  time  the  canons  of  Beverley  founded  two  chapels 
in  York,  in  honour  of  St.  Mary  and  St.  Thomas  the  Apostle  [13, 
vol.  2,  p.  129]. 

The  Cathedral  of  St.  Peter 

In  dealing  with  the  documentary  evidence  for  the  Minster 
it  will  be  suitable  to  adopt  the  form  of  annals,  in  order  to  under- 
line the  continuous  history  of  a building  that  stood  for  four  and 
a half  centuries — during  which  time  the  life  within  its  walls  was 
seldom  interrupted. 

627  The  circumstances  that  led  to  King  Edwin’s  baptism, 

by  Bishop  Paulinus,  in  a temporary  church  of  wood,  need 
not  be  related  here.  Soon  afterwards  the  king  began  to 
build  a cathedral  of  stone,  dedicated  to  St.  Peter,  in  which 
two  of  his  children  were  subsequently  buried  [26,  p.  114]. 

632  In  this  year  Edwin  was  killed  at  Hatfield  Chase,  and 

his  head  was  brought  to  York  and  buried  in  the  Minster  in 
porticu  Sanctae  Papae  Gregorii  [26,  p.  125].  The  word 
porticus  here  means  not  a porch  but  a chapel  opening  off  the 
body  of  the  church;  such  chapels  were  often  used  as  burying- 

1 Dedications  to  St.  Stephen  were  uncommon  in  England  at  this 
time;  the  list  compiled  by  Dr.  Levison  does  not  contain  a single  example 
[22,  p.  259]. 

2 Although  Bede  says  that  the  saint  was  buried  in  the  chapel  of  St. 
Peter  in  his  monastery  [26,  p.  292],  Folcard  changes  the  dedication  to 
St.  John  [27,  p.  260]. 


places  [4,  p.  28].  From  the  first,  then,  there  is  evidence  of 
the  Minster  being  a royal  mausoleum;  and  the  burials  of 
kings  and  bishops  can  be  traced  at  intervals  until  1069. 

When  King  Oswald  had  reduced  Northumbria  to 
order  he  finished  building  the  cathedral  begun  by  Edwin. 
Paulinus  had  meanwhile  removed  to  Kent,  but  ‘he  left  in 
his  church  at  York  James  the  Deacon,  truly  a holy  man 
and  fully  versed  in  the  liturgy,  who,  continuing  in  the 
church  a long  while  after,  rescued  much  prey  from  the  Devil 
by  teaching  and  baptizing’  [26,  p.  126].1  It  is  not  easy  to 
reconcile  this  statement  with  the  next  sentence,  which 
informs  us  that  James  lived  for  the  most  part,  maxime 
solebat  habitare,  in  a village  near  Catterick — unless  he 
retired  thither  when  Ceadda  (St.  Chad)  became  bishop  of 
York  in  664.  Perhaps  James  had  left  the  Minster  still  earlier. 
The  Synod  of  Whitby  reveals  Colman,  bishop  of  Lindisfarne 
from  661  to  663,  as  an  uncompromising  adherent  of  Celtic 
custom,  and,  since  the  church  at  York  was  then  adminis- 
tered by  him,  a disciple  of  Paulinus  might  feel  happier  in 
another  sphere. 

669  In  this  year  Wilfrid  I (St.  Wilfrid)  succeeded  as  bishop 

of  York,  and  found  the  Minster  in  a state  of  disrepair. 
Eddius  Stephanus,  his  biographer,  relates  what  had  to  be 
done:  lead  put  on  the  roof  (doubtless  in  place  of  thatch), 
glass  into  the  windows,  whitewash  on  the  walls  [27,  p.  23]. 
Before  convicting  James  the  Deacon  and  the  Celtic  bishops 
of  actual  neglect,  we  must  remember  that  Eddius  never 
played  down  the  deeds  of  his  hero;  and  Wilfrid,  with  great 
wealth  at  command,  had  no  taste  for  the  apostolic  simplicity 
of  an  Aidan  or  a Chad. 

678  In  this  year  King  TElfwine,  brother  of  King  Ecgfrith, 

fell  at  the  battle  of  the  Trent  [26,  p.  249]  and  his  body  was 
sent  to  York,  in  Eboracum  delatum  est  [27,  pp.  35-36], 
presumably  for  burial  in  the  Minster. 

685  In  this  year  St.  Cuthbert  was  consecrated  at  York  to 

the  see  of  Lindisfarne,  in  the  presence  of  King  Ecgfrith 
[26,  p.  273].  According  to  the  Historia  de  Sancto  Cuthberto 
(for  which  see  p.  241),  to  mark  this  occasion  the  King 
granted  him  ‘all  the  land  that  lies  from  the  wall  of  St. 
Peter’s  church  to  the  great  west  gate,  and  from  the  wall  of 
St.  Peter’s  church  to  the  city  wall  towards  the  south’  [1, 
p.  199].  Although  the  Historia  may  be  wrong  in  connecting 
this  grant  with  the  consecration  of  St.  Cuthbert,2  it  is  an 
authority  of  pre-Conquest  age,  and  indeed  the  only  one  to 

1 James  was  present  at  the  Synod  of  Whitby,  as  one  of  the  Romanist 
party  [26,  p.  183].  Since  he  had  not  reached  the  age  of  priesthood  (30) 
by  632,  he  will  have  been  about  60  at  the  date  of  the  Synod  (663). 

2 Contemporary  accounts  of  St.  Cuthbert’s  life  make  no  reference  to 
any  gift  of  land  in  York  by  Ecgfrith  [5]. 



provide  direct  evidence  for  the  site  of  the  Saxon  cathedral — 
a topic  to  which  we  shall  return. 

718-  According  to  Alcuin,  Bishop  Wilfrid  II  beautified  the 

732  Minster  during  his  tenure  of  the  see  [27,  p.  385,  vv.  1221- 


741  In  this  year  a monasterium  in  Eboraca  civitate  was 

burnt.  The  information  derives  from  Simeon  of  Durham 
[2,  p.  38;  42,  p.  240],  who  in  compiling  his  Historia  Regum 
had  access  to  a set  of  Northumbrian  Annals  written  very 
early  in  the  ninth  century.1  Presumably  St.  Peter’s  is 
meant,  for  we  have  no  notice  of  another  monastery  or 
church  at  York  before  740;  and  a fire  that  could  force  its 
way  into  these  laconic  annals  will  not  have  been  an  ordinary 
affair.  Probably  the  clergy  houses  were  damaged,  as  well 
as  the  Minster.  But  altogether  too  much  has  been  made 
of  this  episode  [18];  the  church  was  repaired  and  soon 
appears  in  the  records  again. 

766-  In  the  former  year  Archbishop  Ecgberht  died,  in  the 

768  latter  his  brother  Eadberht,  who  had  resigned  the  crown  of 

Northumbria  in  758  and  taken  orders  [2,  pp.  41,  43,  44; 
42,  pp.  241-243].  Very  surprisingly  the  A version  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  chronicle,  compiled  in  the  south,  contains  a 
touch  of  local  colour  from  the  north;  sub  anno  738,  noticing 
the  accession  of  King  Eadberht,  it  states  that  both  brothers 
were  buried  at  York  on  anum  portice,  in  the  same  chapel 
[38,  p.  78]  .2  The  Old  English  word  portice  is  obviously 
derived  from  porticus;3  and  although  we  lack  contemporary 
evidence  to  afford  proof,  it  is  likely  that  other  notables — 
Bishop  Bosa,  for  example,  who  died  in  705 — had  also  come 
to  rest  in  the  Minster.4 

767-  During  the  episcopate  of  Archbishop  TEthelberht 

778  (Albert)  three  separate  and  distinct  enterprises  have  been 

recorded  by  Alcuin  in  his  poem  De  Pontificibus  Ebor: 
Carmen,  to  which  reference  has  been  made  above  (p.  233): 

(a)  The  Archbishop  made  large  gifts  towards  the 
adornment  of  the  Minster,  among  them  an  altar  dedicated 
to  St.  Paul.  We  are  not  told  explicitly  whether  these  gifts 
were  made  before  TEthelberht  came  to  the  see — and  during 
the  time  that  he  was  Master  of  the  School  under  Ecgberht — 
or  whether  they  were  made  afterwards;  the  latter  is  more 
probable;  in  any  case,  the  verses  are  eloquent  of  the 

1 See  also  the  Appendix  to  this  article,  p.  244. 

2 This  remark  must  have  been  in  the  archetype  of  A,  whence  it  was 
transmitted  to  all  extant  versions. 

3 And  had  a long  currency,  for  it  turns  up  in  the  Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle  (D,  E)  sub  anno  1072  [38,  pp.  346-347]. 

4 A very  late  source  [28,  p.  236]  affirms  that  Bosa  was  buried  at 
York,  but  the  writer,  if  not  relying  on  tradition,  may  only  be  making  a guess. 


splendour  of  Edwin’s  church  in  Alcuin’s  time  [27,  pp.  356, 
393,  vv.  219-223,  1489-1505]. 

(b)  TEthelberht  was  a collector  of  books,  on  such  a 
scale  as  to  constitute  him  the  virtual  founder  of  the  York 
library  [27,  p.  395,  vv.  1532-1534];  and  no  doubt  manu- 
scripts were  diligently  copied  under  his  direction.  His 
activities  would  seem  to  have  extended  over  a long  period. 
In  747  St.  Boniface  was  able  to  thank  Archbishop  Ecgberht 
for  a present  of  books  [42,  p.  757],  and  his  successor  in  the 
see  of  Mainz  enquired  for  the  works  of  Bede  some  twenty 
years  afterwards  [42,  p.  768].  A little  later,  in  773,  Liudger 
the  Frisian  returned  home  from  York  habens  secum  copiam 
librorum  [25,  p.  408;  42,  p.  725].  The  vicissitudes  of  the 
Library  will  be  discussed  below  (pp.  237-8). 

(c)  During  TEthelberht’s  episcopate  a new  church  was 
built  in  York,  dedicated  to  the  Holy  Wisdom.  Remarks 
on  this  church  are  deferred  for  the  time  being  (pp.  241-3). 

777  According  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  (D,  E)  in  this 

year  another  TEthelberht  was  consecrated  to  the  see  of 
Whithorn  at  York  [42,  p.  165].1 

791  In  this  year  the  sons  of  King  SElfwold  were  decoyed 

from  sanctuary  in  the  principal  church,  de  ecclesia  principali, 
and  afterwards  murdered  [2,  p.  53;  42,  p.  246].  The  rights 
of  sanctuary  at  a later  date,  in  Edward  the  Confessor’s 
time,  were  limited  to  the  Minster  and  its  precincts  [21, 
p.  192],  and  appear  to  have  been  less  extensive  than  those 
enjoyed  by  some  other  churches  in  the  north  [32]. 

793  After  a period  of  absence  abroad,  Alcuin  returned  to 

England  for  a while,  and  in  this  year  he  spent  the  season 
of  Lent  at  York.  Writing  a few  months  later  to  King 
TEthelred  of  Northumbria  he  describes  a vision  that  came 
to  him  in  the  church  of  St.  Peter — a vision  seeming  to 
portend  the  Viking  raid  on  Lindisfarne  which  took  place  on 
8 June  [12,  No.  16,  p.  43;  42,  p.  775], 

796  In  this  year  King  Eardwulf  received  the  crown  of 

Northumbria  in  the  church  of  St.  Peter,  at  the  altar  of  St. 
Paul  given  by  Archbishop  TEthelberht;2  soon  afterwards 
Archbishop  Eanbald  I died  and  was  buried  in  St.  Peter’s  [2, 

1 Simeon  of  Durham’s  version  of  the  Northumbrian  Annals  does  not 
mention  York  as  the  place  of  consecration;  but  there  are  other  evidences 
that  the  ‘northern  recension’  of  the  Chronicle  was  based  on  a set  of  Annals 
in  the  main  identical  with  those  used  by  Simeon,  yet  differing  in  a few  parti- 
culars. This  problem  is  discussed  in  the  Appendix  (pp.  244  and  f.).  Ten  years 
earlier,  in  767,  Simeon  records  that  Aluberht  was  consecrated  as  bishop  of 
the  Old  Saxons  [2,  p.  43;  42,  p.  243];  the  place  of  consecration  is  not  given, 
but  the  Vita  S.  Liudgevi  seems  definitely  to  imply  York  [25,  p.  407;  40, 
p.  180;  42,  p.  725].  These  ceremonies  lend  no  support  to  the  view  that  the 
Minister  had  been  destroyed  in  the  fire  of  741. 

2 The  Historia  Regum  continues  ‘where  that  people  (the  Northum- 
brians) first  obtained  the  grace  of  baptism’,  in  reference  to  Edwin’s  church. 



pp.  57-58;  42,  pp.  248-249].  Meanwhile  Alcuin,  back  in 
France,  was  asking  Charles  the  Great  for  help  in  getting 
books  from  the  York  library  for  the  Abbey  of  Tours  [12, 
No.  121,  p.  177;  42,  p.  786]. 

799  In  this  year  Osbald,  formerly  king  of  Northumbria, 

was  buried  ‘in  the  church  of  the  city  of  York’  [2,  p.  62; 
42,  p.  250],  by  which  phrase  the  Minster  is  to  be  understood. 

801  In  this  year  Alcuin  wrote  to  Archbishop  Eanbald  II 

and  with  the  letter  sent  ‘a  hundred  pounds  of  tin  for 
necessary  works,  and  four  screens  of  lattice.  It  seems  only 
right  that  your  belfrey,  domuncula  cloccarum , should  be 
roofed  with  tin,  for  its  own  beauty  and  the  reputation  of 
the  place’  [12,  No.  226,  p.  370].  Although  the  interpretation 
of  this  passage  is  somewhat  doubtful,  it  could  mean  that  a 
new  structure  for  housing  the  bells  had  recently  been  put 
up,  and  that  Alcuin  had  taken  upon  himself  to  provide  a 
permanent  covering  and  screens  to  keep  out  birds.  If  so, 
with  the  aid  of  a few  reasonable  assumptions1  it  can  be 
calculated  that  this  weight  of  tin  would  cover  approxi- 
mately 17  sq.  ft. — hence  the  belfrey  will  have  been  very 
small,  in  the  nature  of  a cote  rather  than  a tower,  with 
which  the  diminutive  form  domuncula  is  well  in  accord. 
Sir  Alfred  Clapham  has  observed  that  bell  towers  were  not 
a feature  of  ecclesiastical  architecture  until  the  second  half 
of  the  ninth  century,  even  in  Italy  [4,  pp.  117-118]. 

852  During  the  earlier  part  of  this  century  we  have  very 

little  information  about  York,  beyond  the  succession  of 
archbishops.  But  a letter  written  in  852  by  Lupus,  Abbot 
of  Ferrieres,  in  the  hope  of  borrowing  books,  is  proof  that 
the  Library  was  still  intact  and  known  to  scholars  abroad 
[42,  p.  808]. 

866  In  this  year  the  abominable  army  of  the  Danes, 

Danorum  nefandus  exercitus , captured  York  on  1 November 
[7,  p.  298;  42,  p.  256].  In  March  of  the  following  year  they 
were  attacked  by  Osbert  and  TElle  of  Northumbria;  the 
Danes  killed  both  kings,  and  went  on  to  ravage  the  country 
as  far  as  the  Tyne.  During  this  period  of  civil  commotion 
the  library  collected  by  iBthelberht  and  Alcuin  must 
surely  have  been  dispersed  or  destroyed.  It  is  advisable  to 
think  in  terms  of  dispersal  as  well  as  of  outright  destruction, 
because  a document  of  circa  880  shows  that  sometimes  the 

1 The  Old  English  pound  was  probably  of  5760  grains,  as  against 
7000  grains  for  the  pound  avoirdupois  (information  from  Mr.  Philip  Grierson); 
the  specific  gravity  of  tin  is  7.3;  and  the  thickness  of  metal,  for  roofing 
purposes,  is  one  eighth  of  an  inch  (information  from  Mr.  W.  J.  Green, 
Clerk  of  Works  to  the  Minster).  For  the  use  of  tin  as  a covering  see  also 
Codex  Carolinus,  No.  78  (ed.  W.  Gundlach).  Mr.  Grierson  doubts  whether 
writers  of  this  period  are  always  clear  about  the  distinction  between  lead 
and  tin. 



heathen  men  were  shrewd  enough  to  preserve  sacred  books 
and  sell  them  back  to  the  Christians  [42,  p.  497].  And  a 
few  pieces  in  the  York  library  may  have  escaped:  an 
inventory  of  about  1530,  printed  in  Dugdale  [13,  vol.  6, 
p.  1205],  mentions  two  texts  of  the  Gospels  Sancti  Wilfridis 
belonging  to  the  Dean  and  Chapter.  The  attribution  to 
St.  Wilfrid  himself  need  not  be  taken  seriously,  because 
any  ancient  and  beautiful  manuscript  might  attract  the 
name  of  a prominent  figure;1  still,  these  texts,  with  their 
ivory  covers,  may  have  come  down  from  a very  remote 

The  troubles  of  the  Minster  did  not  end  with  the 
establishment  of  Danish  rule;  during  the  year  872-873 
Archbishop  Wulfhere  was  forced  to  take  refuge  in  Mercia 
[7,  pp.  323,  325;  42,  p.  256],  and  in  919  the  Norseman 
Ragnald  ‘took  York  by  storm’  [2,  p.  93;  42,  p.  252].  All 
in  all,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  any  large 
collection  of  books  could  have  been  kept  together  through- 
out such  stirring  events.2  From  this  time  forward  the  York 
library  ceased  to  be  an  influence  on  European  civilization; 
and  not  a single  book  then  belonging  to  it  can  be  identified 

895  In  this  year  King  Guthfrith,  a Danish  convert  to 

Christianity,  was  buried  at  York  in  basilica  summa  [31, 
p.  482;  35,  p.  259].  The  phrase  comes  from  TEthelweard’s 
Latin  rendering  of  a lost,  but  very  early,  version  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  chronicle,  and  reads  like  a translation  of 
heafodmynster . Evidently  St.  Peter’s  was  still  being  used 
as  a royal  burying-place.3 

900-  During  this  period  the  Archbishops  of  York  issued  the 

925  coins  known  as  St.  Peter’s  Pence  [10] ; an  archiepiscopal 
right  of  minting  can  be  traced  as  far  back  as  the  beginnings 
of  a Northumbrian  coinage. 

934  In  this  year  King  Athelstan  granted  land  to  basilica 

Sancti  Petri  principis  Apostolorum  at  York  [14,  p.  1].  The 

1 For  instance,  the  so-called  Gospels  of  St.  Chad,  now  at  Lichfield, 
were  almost  certainly  written  after  his  death  [24,  p.  43] ; also,  ‘the  medieval 
monks  of  Canterbury  were  very  ready  to  claim  that  books  in  their  possession 
had  been  brought  over  by  St.  Augustine,  and  they  were  usually  wrong’ 
[40,  p.  242].  The  Maeseyck  Gospels  have  been  tentatively  ascribed  to 
the  York  school  of  Wilfrid’s  time  [15,  p.  122],  but  on  no  secure  grounds; 
Ripon  was  the  chief  and  lasting  centre  of  his  influence. 

2 Compare  the  judgement  of  Dom  David  Knowles  [20,  p.  523]:  ‘only 
Glastonbury  and  the  two  monasteries  of  Canterbury  succeeded  in  preserving 
a great  part  of  their  libraries  for  future  ages.’  Two  books — the  Liber  Vitae 
and  Gospels — were  assuredly  saved  by  the  Lindisfarne  community;  yet, 
even  if  a few  others  that  were  still  at  Durham  in  the  Middle  Ages  had 
accompanied  the  coffin  of  St.  Cuthbert  on  its  wanderings,  the  judgement 
still  stands. 

3 The  Chronicle  text  used  by  AEthelweard  may  not  have  continued 
beyond  892;  if  indeed  it  broke  off  there,  he  was  drawing  upon  another  source. 



text  of  this  charter  has  come  under  suspicion,  but  a recent 
appraisal  shews  that  it  is  most  likely  genuine  [42,  p.  505]. 

946  Under  this  year  Roger  of  Wendover  records  that  King 

Eadred  gave  two  large  bells,  duo  signa  non  modica,  to  the 
metropolitan  church  of  York  [7,  p.  399;  42,  p.  257].  Earlier 
bell-metal  will  have  gone  for  Danish  loot.1 

972-  To  this  period  belongs  a statement  of  Archbishop 

992  Oswald,  complaining  that  lands  had  been  taken  from  St. 
Peter  [30,  p.  112;  42,  p.  521]. 

1014  In  this  year  King  Sweyn  died  at  Gainsborough  and 

was  buried  in  York  Minster,  his  bones  being  afterwards 
removed2  [16,  p.  176,  vv.  4161-4168;  2,  p.  146].  Although 
the  sources  for  this  statement  are  both  late,  they  seem  to 
be  independent;  and  in  the  absence  of  any  motive  for 
inventing  such  a tale  it  can  be  taken  as  reliable  tradition.3 

1061-  During  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Confessor  writs  were 
1066  issued  granting  land  to  Peter es  mynster  on  Euerwic,  and 
certain  judicial  and  financial  rights  to  Archbishop  Ealdred 
[17,  Nos.  118,  120,  pp.  418-419].4 

1069  In  this  year,  according  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle 

(D),  on  11  September  Archbishop  Ealdred  died  and  was 
buried  in  the  cathedral  city  [11,  p.  150].  This  may  have 
been  the  last  burial  of  a notable  person  in  the  Saxon  church, 
for  very  soon  afterwards  the  Normans  Thoroughly  ravaged 
and  burnt  the  holy  minster  of  St.  Peter'.  We  have  further 
comment  from  the  pen  of  Hugh  the  Chanter,  who  died 
circa  1140:  incensa  quoque  et  Beati  Petri  metropolis  ecclesia 
et  ornamenta  illius,  cartae  et  privilegia  combusta  vel  perdita 
fuerunt  [28,  p.  98].  On  the  strength  of  this  witness  it  has 
often  been  supposed  that  the  Library  was  totally  destroyed. 
Some  damage  must  indeed  have  occurred;  but  a number  of 
books  and  charters  were  rescued  from  the  flames: 

(a)  A text  of  the  Gospels,  still  in  the  Library,  bears 
every  evidence  of  having  been  at  York  since  the  early  part 
of  the  eleventh  century  [19,  No.  402,  p.  468]. 

(b)  Two  other  books — B.M.  Cotton  Nero  A.  i (ff.  70- 
177)  and  Harley  208 — have  claims  to  be  regarded  as 
members  of  the  pre-Conquest  collection  [19,  Nos.  164,  229, 
pp.  211,  304]. 

1 In  968  TElfsige  was  consecrated  at  York  to  the  see  of  Chester-le-Street 
[bp.  78]. 

2 To  Roskilde  in  Denmark  ( Encomium  Emmae  Reginae,  ed.  A.  Camp- 
bell, Camden  Society,  London  1949,  Vol.  72,  p.  lvii). 

3 The  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  (D)  records  consecrations  of  bishops  at 
York  in  1014  and  1041  [42,  pp.  224,  235]. 

4 In  1062  Wulfstan  was  consecrated  to  the  see  of  Worcester  at  York 
(Anglia  Sacra,  ed.  H.  Wharton,  Vol.  2,  p.  251).  The  information  seems  to 
derive  from  an  Old  English  life  of  the  saint  which  has  been  lost. 


(c)  The  Registrum  Magnum  Album,  a manuscript  of 
the  fourteenth  century  now  belonging  to  the  Dean  and 
Chapter,  contains  the  texts  of:  King  Athelstan’s  charter 
of  934,  already  noticed;  a charter  of  King  Eadwig,  956, 
conveying  large  estates  at  Southwell  [14,  p.  5];  a grant  of 
King  Edgar,  958,  and  two  further  grants  by  the  same,  963 
[14,  pp.  10,  15,  18];  a grant  of  King  Canute,  1033  [14,  p. 
23];  two  writs  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  already  noticed; 
a grant  by  the  same  King  to  Archbishop  Ealdred  [29,  p.  7]  j1 
a writ  of  the  same,  circa  1065,  also  to  Ealdred  [14,  p.  29]; 
and  a writ  of  William  the  Conqueror,  before  1069,  con- 
firming the  previous  writ  [14,  p.  30].  The  originals  of 
these  texts,  or  a transcript  thereof,  cannot  have  been 

( d ) There  is  a growing  body  of  evidence  that  the  so- 
called  'northern  recension’  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle 
(the  archetype  of  the  D and  E versions)  was  perhaps  being 
put  together  during  the  primacy  of  Archbishop  Wulfstan, 
1002 — 1023,  and  there  are  internal  signs  that  the  arche- 
type of  D was  still  at  York  in  1052  and  1060  [41,  pp.  28-30]; 
moreover,  this  version  betrays  much  interest  in  the  career 
of  Ealdred,  archbishop  from  1061  to  1069  [35,  p.  681]. 2 

By  direct  or  indirect  means,  then,  we  learn  that  a 
good  deal  of  manuscript  material  survived  the  Norman 
attack,  and  it  is  fair  to  suspect  Hugh  the  Chanter  of 
exaggeration — a not  uncommon  failing  in  medieval  chronic- 
lers.3 These  manuscripts  were  also  at  risk  a little 

1075  In  this  year  the  Anglo-Saxon  chronicle  (D)  records 

that  two  hundred  ships  arrived  from  Denmark,  and  the 
Danes  'went  to  York  and  destroyed  St.  Peter’s  Minster, 
and  captured  much  booty  there,  and  so  departed’ 
[11,  p.  157].  The  Minster  here  referred  to  might  be 
either  the  Saxon  church  repaired  and  refurbished,  or 
the  new  Norman  church  that  Archbishop  Thomas  of 
Bayeux  is  known  to  have  put  up.  Although  arguments 
from  silence  are  dangerous,  the  failure  of  the  Chronicle 
to  mention  any  new  construction  might  suggest  that 
Thomas’s  work  had  not  proceeded  very  far,  if  at  all, 
by  the  year  1079,  when  the  D version  ends.  It  is 
not  unreasonable  to  conclude  that  the  useful  life  of  Edwin’s 

1 A dispensation  of  Pope  Nicholas  II,  1061,  also  printed  by  Chan- 
cellor Raine  [29,  p.  5],  may  not  be  genuine. 

2 A concern  for  York  affairs  does  not  necessarily  indicate  that  the 
Chronicle  was  being  written  in  York  itself;  but  for  further  evidence  see  the 

3 We  can  perhaps  fault  him  on  the  ornamenta  as  well,  for  the  Horn  of 
Ulphus  could  easily  have  belonged  to  the  Minster  in  Saxon  times. 



cathedral  of  St.  Peter  lasted  from  627  until  circa  1080.1 

Having  reviewed  the  history  of  this  church  we  will  next 
consider  its  whereabouts.  The  antiquaries  of  past  generations 
thought  that  a certain  amount  of  Saxon  masonry  was  to  be  found 
in,  or  under,  the  crypt  of  the  present  cathedral,  and  were  ready 
to  suppose  that  Edwin’s  church  must  have  stood  on  that  site. 
But  a recent  analysis  of  the  evidence  lends  no  support  to  their 
opinion;  we  cannot  point  to  any  walls,  foundations  or  floor  of 
undoubtedly  Saxon  origin  within  the  area  occupied  by  the  Minster 
[23].  However,  a piece  of  documentary  evidence  throws  light  on 
what  would  otherwise  be  a tiresome  problem. 

Somewhere  about  the  year  945  a cleric  of  Chester-le-Street 
composed  a narrative  of  the  gifts — a kind  of  chartulary — made 
at  various  times  to  the  Congregation  of  St.  Cuthbert.  This  Historia 
de  Sancto  Cuthberto  received  additions  and  interpolations  about  a 
hundred  years  later,  at  Durham;  yet,  although  the  surviving 
manuscripts  are  of  post-Conquest  date,  there  is  no  trace  of  Norman 
influence  in  the  work,  which  was  used  by  Simeon  in  composing 
his  history  of  the  church  of  Durham,  circa  1105  [1].  In  a recent 
study  of  the  Historia  de  Sancto  Cuthberto,  Sir  Edmund  Craster  has 
concluded  that  its  earliest  material  was  not  derived  from  manu- 
script sources,  but  must  represent  late  oral  tradition;  and  as 
regards  the  times  and  circumstances  of  grants  this  opinion  can 
hardly  be  disputed  [8].  Nevertheless,  in  matters  of  topography 
the  Historia  seems  to  be  reliable.  If  the  boundaries  of  a grant  of 
land  mentioned  previously,  sub  anno  685  (p.  234),  have  been 
correctly  transmitted,  they  can  be  taken  to  mean  that  Edwin’s 
church  stood  at  the  West  end  of  the  present  cathedral  [18]. 
Whether  or  not  this  interpretation  is  right,  the  boundaries  were 
intended  to  convey  clear  directions  to  people  familiar  with  the 
plan  of  Saxon  York;  bishops  of  the  Lindisfarne  succession  some- 
times came  to  the  city  for  consecration,  and  they  would  not 
travel  alone. 

The  Church  of  the  Holy  Wisdom 

The  last  building  to  be  considered  is  the  most  puzzling  of 
all.  Its  dedication  alone  is  curious,  and  unique  in  Saxon  England.2 
What  we  hear  of  it  is  contained  in  a single  reference.  During  his 
tenure  of  the  See  from  767  to  778,  Archbishop  SEthelberht  caused 
a church  to  be  built,  with  thirty  altars,  which  a few  days  before 
his  death  in  780  was  dedicated  by  him  to  Alma  Sophia,  the  Holy 

1 In  consequence  of  William  the  Conqueror’s  devastation,  very  little 
building  of  large  churches  took  place  in  the  northern  Province  until  well 
after  the  Conquest.  The  first  stones  were  laid  at  St.  Mary’s  Abbey,  York, 
in  1089,  at  Durham  in  1093,  and  at  Chester  Abbey  about  the  same  time; 
there  were  no  stone  buildings  at  Selby  before  1097. 

2 A tablet  found  in  the  tomb  of  Acca,  bishop  of  Hexham,  who  died 
in  740,  bore  the  inscription  Almae  Trinitati,  Agiae  Sophiae,  Sanctae  Mariae 
[2,  p.  33].  On  the  continent,  Dr.  Nikolaus  Pevsner  has  noticed  that  the 
monastery  at  Eschau,  founded  in  778,  was  dedicated  to  SS.  Mary,  Sophia 
and  Trophime  (from  MGH,  Script.  Tom.  xv,  ii,  p.  995). 


Wisdom.  TEthelberht’s  successor,  Eanbald  I,  and  his  pupil 
Alcuin  had  helped  direct  the  construction;  to  the  latter  we  owe 
our  knowledge  of  its  existence  [27,  p.  394,  vv.  1506-1519]. 

It  is  rather  surprising  that  a church  so  splendid  should  have 
vanished  without  material  or  documentary  trace.  Alcuin’s  state- 
ment that  it  contained  thirty  altars,  triginta  aras,  must  mean  'up- 
wards of  twenty’,  because  viginta  would  have  suited  the  scansion 
equally  well;  and  how  to  accommodate  so  many  altars  on  the 
ground  plan  of  the  very  biggest  of  Saxon  churches — Hexham,  for 
example,  or  Brixworth1 — is  at  first  sight  something  of  a problem. 
But  the  position  has  been  made  easier  by  the  recent  studies  of 
Dr.  H.  M.  Taylor  [37],  who  shows  that  wooden  galleries  in  pre- 
Conquest  times  were  by  no  means  rare;  and  indeed  the  word 
solaria  in  Alcuin’s  poem  is  taken  to  mean  'galleries’  by  Professor 
Baldwin  Brown  [3,  p.  147]  and  by  Sir  Alfred  Clapham  [4,  p.  47]. 
Thus  the  ground  area  occupied  by  the  Alma  Sophia  need  not  have 
been  considerable. 

Alcuin  gives  no  clue  to  the  whereabouts  of  the  Alma  Sophia. 
Two  possibilities  are  worth  considering: 

(a)  A religious  community  in  Anglo-Saxon  times  often  had 
several  churches  or  chapels  within  its  precinct,  strung  out  in  line 
like  processionary  caterpillars;  the  arrangements  at  Canterbury 
and  Glastonbury  have  been  recovered  by  excavation  [4,  pp.  18-19, 
51-52].  If  Edwin’s  church  stood  at  the  west  end  of  the  present 
Minster,  TEthelberht’s  may  have  been  built  immediately  to  the 
east,  between  the  West  Front  and  Central  Tower. 

(b)  The  Danish  conquest  of  Yorkshire  in  866  was  followed 
by  extensive  settlement;  and  immigration  from  various  parts  of 
Scandinavia  was  still  in  progress  two  hundred  years  later  [34]. 
‘The  name  of  York  itself  and  the  names  of  its  streets  betoken  the 
thoroughness  of  the  Scandinavian  occupation  and,  as  in  the 
North  and  East  Ridings,  Scandinavian  names  must  largely  have 
replaced  the  earlier  British  and  Anglian  nomenclature’  [33,  p. 
277].  Within  the  compass  of  the  Roman  city  only  four  or  five 
street-names  of  Old  English  origin  have  survived,  or,  setting  aside 
lanes  and  alleys,  only  two.  The  first  of  them,  Aldwark  ( eald 
geweorc—  old  work)  describes  the  adjacent  Roman  wall.  The 
second  is  Bedern  [gebed  aern  = prayer  house);  and  such  a name 
would  perhaps  not  have  been  retained  in  a largely  Scandinavian 
society  unless  it  referred,  like  Aldwark,  to  a prominent  object. 
If  the  Alma  Sophia  escaped  destruction  by  the  Danes  in  866,  the 
street-name  may  be  a clue  to  its  position;  and  excavations  in  the 
floor  of  the  Bedern  Chapel,  now  dilapidated,  might  yield  material 
of  interest.  On  the  other  hand,  Bedern  may  have  been  the  site 
of  a religious  house  such  as  the  cella  Sancti  Stephani  (above,  p. 
233),  and  the  lack  of  documentary  evidence  about  the  Alma 

1 Or  the  contemporary  church  of  St.  Riquier  in  Picardy  [4,  p.  79]. 



Sophia  is  most  readily  explained  by  supposing  it  to  have  been  a 
victim  of  Danish  attack. 

* * * * * 

Nearly  all  the  literary  sources  for  pre-Conquest  churches  in 
York  have  been  in  print  for  fifty  years  or  more,  and  the  work  of 
Anglo-Saxon  scholars  during  the  intervening  time  has  enabled 
this  material  to  be  seen  in  a much  clearer  light.  Yet  architectural 
research  has  come  almost  to  a full  stop.  New  manuscript  sources 
cannot  be  hoped  for;  and  although  new  interpretations  of  docu- 
ments will  continue  to  be  made,  and  disputed,  in  the  last  resort 
our  knowledge  of  Anglo-Saxon  architecture  in  York  can  only  be 
increased  to  a material  extent  by  digging.  Even  the  sites  of  two 
considerable  churches  can  only  be  guessed  at;  and  built  as  these 
churches  were,  each  at  a critical  time — one  of  them  the  first  in 
all  Northumbria,  the  other  while  a current  of  intellectual  renaiss- 
ance was  moving  from  York  to  the  Continent — the  details  of 
their  planning  would  be  of  considerable  interest.  It  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that,  outside  Kent,  hardly  anything  is  known  of 
pre-Conquest  building  during  the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century, 
and  that  ‘the  eighth  century  and  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  is  the 
most  obscure  and  difficult  period  in  the  history  of  English  archi- 
tecture’ (4,  p.  46).  To  excavations  in  York,  rather  than  in  any 
other  place,  we  can  most  profitably  turn  for  enlightenment. 


[1]  Arnold,  T.  Symeonis  Monachi  Opera,  Rolls  Series,  London  1885, 

Vol.  1,  Historia  Dunelmensis  Ecclesiae  and  Historia  de  Sancto 


[2]  — Ibid.,  Vol.  2,  Historia  Regum. 

[3]  Baldwin  Brown,  G.  The  Arts  in  Early  England,  2nd  ed.,  London 

1925,  Vol.  2. 

[4]  Clapham,  Sir  A.  W.  English  Romanesque  Architecture  before  the 

Conquest,  Oxford,  1930. 

[5]  Colgrave,  B.  Two  Lives  of  St.  Cuthbert,  Cambridge  1940. 

[6]  Collingwood,  W.  G.  Northumbrian  Crosses  of  the  Pre-Norman  Age, 

London  1927. 

[7]  Coxe,  H.  O.  Rogeri  de  Wendover  Chronica  sive  Flores  Historiarum, 

London  1841,  Vol.  1. 

[8]  Craster,  Sir  E.  English  Historical  Review,  1954,  Vol.  69,  p.  177. 

[9]  Darby,  H.  C.  The  Domesday  Geography  of  Eastern  England,  Cambridge 


[10]  Dolley,  R.  H.  M.  British  Numismatic  Journal,  1955,  Vol.  28,  p.  11. 

[11]  Douglas,  D.  C.  and  Greenaway,  G.  W.  English  Historical  Documents, 

London  1953,  Vol.  2 (1042-1189). 

[12]  Duemmler,  E.  Alcuini  Epistolae  in  Monumenta  Germaniae  Historica, 

Epistolarum  Tomus  IV,  Berlin  1895. 

[13]  Dugdale,  Sir  W.  Monasticon  Anglicanum,  ed.  J.  Caley  et  al.,  London 


[14]  Farrer,  W.  Early  Yorkshire  Charters,  Edinburgh  1914,  Vol.  1. 

[15]  Grabar,  A.  and  Nordenfalk,  C.  Early  Medieval  Painting,  Lausanne 


[16]  Hardy,  Sir  T.  D.  and  Martin,  C.  T.  Lestorie  des  Engles  solum  G. 

Gaimar,  Rolls  Series,  London  1888,  Vol.  1. 



[17]  Harmer,  F.  E.  Anglo  Saxon  Writs,  Manchester  1952. 

[18]  Harrison,  K.  Yorkshire  Archaeological  Journal,  1958,  Vol.  39,  p.  436. 

[19]  Ker,  N.  R.  Catalogue  of  Manuscripts  containing  Anglo-Saxon,  Oxford 


[20]  Knowles,  D.  The  Monastic  Order  in  England,  Cambridge  1941. 

[21]  Leach,  A.  F.  Visitations  and  Memorials  of  Southwell  Minster,  Camden 

Society,  London  1891. 

[22]  Levison,  W.  England  and  the  Continent  in  the  Eighth  Century,  Oxford 


[23]  Melmore,  S.  Notes  on  the  Early  Architectural  History  of  York  Minster, 

London  and  York  1954. 

[24]  Oakeshott,  W.  The  Sequence  of  English  Medieval  Art,  London  1950. 

[25]  Pertz,  G.  Altfridi  Vita  Sancti  Liudgeri,  in  Monumenta  Germaniae 

Historica,  Scriptorum  Tomus  II,  Hanover  1829. 

[26]  Plummer,  C.  V enerabilis  Baedae  Opera  Historica,  Oxford  1896,  Vol.  1. 

[27]  Raine,  J.  The  Historians  of  the  Church  of  York,  Rolls  Series,  London 

1879,  Vol.  1,  Vita  Wilfridi  auctore  Eddio  Stephano,  Vita  Sancti 
Johannis  auctore  Folcardo,  De  Pontifcibus  Ebor:  Carmen  auctore 

[28]  — Ibid.,  Vol.  2,  Hugh  the  Chanter,  etc. 

[29]  — Ibid.,  Vol.  3,  Illustrative  Documents. 

[30]  Robertson,  A.  J.  Anglo-Saxon  Charters,  2nd  ed.,  Cambridge  1956. 

[31]  Savile,  Sir  H.  Rerum  Anglicarum  Scriptores  post  Baedam,  London  1596. 

[32]  Simpson,  J.  Saga-Book  of  the  Viking  Society,  1955,  Vol.  14,  p.  200. 

[33]  Smith,  A.  H.  The  Place-N ames  of  the  East  Riding  of  Yorkshire  and 

York,  English  Place-Name  Society,  Vol.  14,  Cambridge  1937. 

[34]  Stenton,  Sir  F.  M.  York  in  the  Eleventh  Century,  in  York  Minster 

Historical  Tracts,  ed.  A.  H.  Thompson,  London  1927. 

[35]  — Anglo-Saxon  England,  2nd  ed.,  Oxford  1947. 

[36]  Tait,  J.  The  Medieval  English  Borough,  Manchester  1936. 

[37]  Taylor,  H.  M.  In  The  Anglo-Saxons,  ed.  P.  Clemoes,  Cambridge  1959. 
F38]  Thorpe,  B.  The  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle,  Rolls  Series,  London  1861, 

Vol.  1. 

[39]  Wattenbach,  W.  Monumenta  Alcuiniana,  Berlin  1873. 

[40]  Whitelock,  D.  The  Beginnings  of  English  Society,  London  1952. 

[41]  — Early  English  Manuscripts  in  Facsimile,  Copenhagen  1954, 

Vol.  4. 

[42]  — English  Historical  Documents,  London  1955,  Vol.  1 ( circa 


Appendix:  Eighth-Century  Northumbrian  Annals 

Apart  from  the  writings  of  Alenin,  most  of  our  information  about 
York  in  the  eighth  century  derives  from  the  Northumbrian  Annals  in- 
corporated by  Simeon  of  Durham  into  his  Historia  Regum  (above,  p.  235). 1 
These  Annals  have  a wider  interest,  because  material  from  them  found  its 
way  into  that  ‘northern  recension’  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  which 
gave  rise  to  the  existing  D and  E versions;  we  have  seen  (above,  p.  236) 
that  this  recension  was  quite  possibly  compiled  at  York  in  Archbishop 
Wulfstan’s  time.  2 And  the  question  arises— What  is  the  genesis  of  the 
material  incorporated  into  the  Chronicle? 

In  considering  the  archetype  of  the  D and  E versions,  the  Rev.  C. 
Plummer  concluded  that  the  northern  entries  are  'clearly  based  on  the 
Latin  Northumbrian  Annals  embodied  in  Simeon  of  Durham  and  Roger  of 
Hoveden.  The  copy  used  by  them  extended  only  to  802;  that  used  by  the 

1 The  relationship  between  the  manuscripts  now  extant,  and  their 
significance  as  historical  documents,  is  discussed  by  Mr.  P.  Hunter  Blair 
in  Archaeologia  Aeliana,  1939,  4th  series,  Vol.  16,  p.  87. 

2 Or  perhaps  a little  earlier — there  can  be  no  certainty. 



compiler  of  the  original  of  the  D,  E type  of  Chronicle  extended  somewhat 
further,  for  the  northern  element  is  clearly  traceable  up  to  806  inclusive.’ 1 
We  can  provisionally  distinguish,  then,  between  the  ‘802  version’  embedded 
in  Simeon’s  Historia  Regum  and  the  ‘806  version’  available  to  the  archetype 
of  D and  E.  And  the  enquiry  can  be  pursued  a little  further.  In  what 
follows,  the  years  in  the  margin  (apart  from  the  four  last)  are  those  of  the 
Historia  Regum,  whose  chronology  is  as  a rule  more  exact;  and  information 
given  by  the  Chronicle  (D,  E)  but  absent  from  the  Historia  Regum  is  printed 
in  italics  : 

761  King  TEthelwold  killed  Oswine  at  YEdwinesclif  (instead  of  Eildon). 

764  Frithuwold  bishop  of  Whithorn  died  on  7 May.  He  had  been  con- 
secrated in  the  city  (York)  on  15  August  in  the  sixth  year  of  Ceolwulf's 
reign  (734)  and  was  bishop  29  years.  Then  Pehtwine  was  consecrated 
to  Whithorn  at  Elvet  on  17  July  (probably  in  763,  for  17  July  was  a 
Sunday  in  that  year). 

774  King  Alhred  was  expelled  from  York  at  Eastertide. 

Ill  iEthelberht  (afterwards  bishop  of  Hexham)  was  consecrated  to 
Whithorn  at  York  on  15  June. 

778  TEthelbald  and  Heardberht  killed  three  high-reeves,  Ealdwulf  son  of 
Bosa  at  Coniscliffe  and  Cynewulf  and  Ecga  at  Helathyrne  2 3 on  22  March 
(instead  of  29  September). 

780  Archbishop  TEthelberht  died  in  the  city  (that  is,  York). 

781  Higbald  was  consecrated  to  Lindisfarne  at  Sockburn. 

783  There  was  a synod  at  Aclea. 

788  A synod  was  assembled  at  Aclea  A 

790  Badwulf  was  consecrated  to  Whithorn  by  Archbishop  Eanbald  (Eanbald 
I of  York)  and  by  Bishop  AEthelberht  (of  Hexham)  on  17  July. 

793  Ealdorman  Sicga  died  on  22  February.  (The  Historia  Regum  only 
knows  that  his  body  was  taken  to  Lindisfarne  on  23  April.) 

796  Eardwulf  was  consecrated  king  of  Northumbria  at  York  by  Archbishop 
Eanbald  and  by  JEthelberht , Higbald  and  Badwulf  (bishops  of  Hexham, 
Lindisfarne  and  Whithorn  respectively). 

798  There  was  a battle  at  Whalley  in  the  spring  on  2 April,  and  Alric  son 
of  Heardberht  was  killed.  (The  Historia  Regum  account  omits  the  date 
and  gives  different  particulars.) 

800  In  this  year  there  was  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  in  the  second  hour  of  the 
eve  of  16  January.  4 

802  In  this  year  there  was  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  in  the  dawn  on  20  December.  5 

803  In  this  year  Higbald,  bishop  of  Lindisfarne , died  on  25  May,  and 
Ecgberht  was  consecrated  in  his  place  on  11  June.6 

806  In  this  year  there  was  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  on  1 September . 7 And 

1 Two  Saxon  Chronicles  Parallel,  Oxford  1899  (repr.  1952),  Vol.  2, 
p.  lxix. 

2 This  place  has  not  been  identified. 

3 The  O.E.  Aclea  would  be  represented  by  such  modern  forms  as 
Oakleigh  or  Acle  or  Aycliffe — names  too  widespread  to  permit  of  identifica- 
tion. The  place  need  not  have  been  in  Northumbria. 

4 That  is,  about  8 o’clock  in  the  evening  of  15  January.  The  eclipse 
was  partial,  not  total;  its  date  and  hour  are  confirmed  by  calculations  made 
by  the  Rev.  S.  J.  Johnson,  The  Astronomical  Register,  1873,  Vol.  10,  p.  242; 
and  by  T.  von  Oppolzer,  Canon  der  Finsternisse,  Vienna  1887,  p.  356. 

5 The  date  should  be  21  May,  as  was  shown  by  Mr.  Johnson  in  Monthly 
Notices,  Royal  Astronomical  Society,  1873,  Vol.  33,  p.  402;  a scribe  had 
written  xiii  Kal.  Jan.  for  xii  Kal.  jun.  Otherwise  the  entry  is  correct,  the 
total  phase  lasting  from  4.02  to  4.34  a.m.,  according  to  J.  F.  Schroeter, 
Spezieller  Canon  der  Zentralen  Sonnen-  und  Mondfnsternissen  600-1800, 
Kristiania  1923,  p.  190. 

6 But  this  information,  being  already  in  his  Historia  Duneimensis 
Ecclesiae,  Simeon  may  have  deliberately  omitted  from  the  Historia  Regum. 

7 Totality  lasted  from  9.52  to  11.16  p.m.  (Schroeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  190. 



Eardwulj,  King  of  the  Northumbrians,  was  expelled  from  his  kingdom. 

And  Eanberht,  bishop  of  Hexham,  died. 

Before  taking  all  these  divergences  as  proof  that  the  ‘806  version’  was 
rather  fuller  than  the  ‘802  version’,  three  qualifications  must  be  made. 

In  the  first  place,  just  as  the  compiler  of  the  archetype  of  D and  E 
omits,  or  abbreviates,  particulars  which  will  have  been  in  the  manuscript 
of  the  Northumbrian  Annals  that  he  possessed,  so  the  transmitters  of  the 
‘802  version’  may  have  taken  a similar  liberty  with  the  document  they  were 
copying.  We  do  not  know  how  many  stages  intervened  between  the  ‘802 
version’  in  its  pristine  state  and  the  document  that  came  into  the  hands  of 
the  Durham  historians.  We  do  know  that  the  parent  of  the  existing  text 
has  been  interpolated  in  various  ways  (Hunter  Blair,  loc.  cit.),  and  allowance 
should  be  made  for  information  dropping  out  while  successive  drafts  of 
the  ‘802  version’  were  being  prepared,  and  for  errors  of  transcription  creeping 
in.  Yet  the  impression  remains  that  the  transcribers  were  as  a rule  careful 
about  facts,  even  when  they  put  in  flowery  language  of  their  own,  because 
the  ‘802  version’  often  preserves  both  the  exact  date  of  an  event — the  day 
of  the  month  being  noted — and  the  place  where  an  event  occurred.  State- 
ments of  the  form  ‘so-and-so  fought  (or  died,  or  was  consecrated,  or  was 
married)  on  such-and-such  a day'  are  recorded  over  thirty  times  in  the 
‘802  version’;  the  omission  of  similar  details,  of  a kind  that  occur  in  the 
‘806  version’,  can  hardly  be  set  down  to  laziness  or  inadvertence  on  the 
part  of  copyists,  but  suggests  rather  that  these  entries  were  not  in  the 
document  they  possessed. 1 After  all,  they  were  simply  transmitting  annals, 
and — unlike  the  compiler  of  the  D,  E archetype — were  not  trying  to  dove- 
tail their  material  into  a national  chronicle.  Moreover,  the  death  of  the 
high-reeves,  sub  anno  778,  is  dated  22nd  March  in  one  version  and  29th 
September  by  the  other;  this  discrepancy  cannot  be  due  to  a mere  slip  of 
the  pen,  and  seems,  like  several  more  entries,  to  indicate  a different  manu- 
script tradition. 

As  to  the  second  qualification,  we  can  imagine  the  compiler  of  the 
archetype  of  D and  E himself  introducing  material  that  was  not  in  the 
original  form  of  the  ‘806  version’.  Thus  when  we  are  told,  sub  anno  780, 
that  Archbishop  TEthelberht  died  in  the  city  (York),  the  Chronicler  may  have 
been  drawing  a reasonable  inference  from  the  Archbishop’s  tomb,  or  relying 
on  tradition.  And  Mr.  Plummer  (op.  cit.,  p.  49)  considers  that  TEdwinesclif, 
sub  anno  761,  may  be  a ‘volks  etymologie’  for  Eldunesclif.  Yet — to  take  a 
few  examples — the  consecrations  of  Pehtwine  in  764  at  Elvet  on  17  July 
and  of  TEthelberht  in  777  at  York  on  15  June,  and  the  date  of  the  battle  of 
Whalley,  fall  into  a different  category;  such  details  are  not  likely  to  have 
survived,  by  oral  tradition,  for  upwards  of  two  hundred  years;  and  the 
same  remark  applies  with  even  greater  force  to  the  astronomical  entries 
sub  annis  800,  802,  and  806,  which  would  appear  to  derive  from  an  eye- 

The  third  qualification  is  of  a similar  kind:  the  Northumbrian  Annals 
need  not  have  been  the  sole  source  of  historical  information  at  the  Chronicler’s 
disposal.  There  are  traces,  as  Mr.  Plummer  has  observed  (op.  cit.,  p.  lxviii, 
n.  6),  of  material  not  derived  from  Bede,  or  any  obvious  authority,  in  the 
D and  E versions  before  733,  when  the  influence  of  the  Northumbrian 
Annals  begins  to  be  apparent. 2 Some  of  the  eighth-century  material 
(italicised)  has  a northern  ring  : 

705  King  Aldfrith  died  at  Driffield  on  14  December. 

1 It  must  be  observed,  however,  that  a text  of  the  ‘802  version’,  or 
material  stemming  from  it,  available  to  Richard  of  Hexham  contained  the 
precise  date,  29  Sept.,  of  the  788  Synod  of  Aclea — facts  not  in  Simeon 
(A.  W.  Haddan  and  W.  Stubbs,  Councils  etc.,  Oxford  1871,  Vol.  3,  p.  464); 
yet  Richard  was  not  following  a D,  E type  of  Chronicle. 

2 That  is,  the  text  of  the  Annals  as  handed  down  by  Simeon.  For  a 
discussion  of  entries  before  733  see  P.  Hunter  Blair,  Archaeologia  Aeliana, 
1948,  4th  series,  Vol.  26,  p.  98. 



710  Ealdorman  Brihtferth  fought  against  the  Piets  between  Haefe  and 
Caere  (rivers  Avon  and  Carron).  And  in  the  same  year  Sigbald  was 

716  King  Osred  was  slain  to  the  south  of  the  border. 

Although  it  is  possible,  as  Mr.  Plummer  believed,  that  these  items  had 
been  entered  into  the  manuscript  of  the  ‘806  version’,  we  cannot  exlude 
other  explanations:  the  mere  existence  of  the  Continuation  of  Bede,  and 
of  particulars  reaching  us  through  Roger  of  Wendover,  is  enough  to  prove 
that  the  writing  of  northern  records  was  not  confined  to  a single  book  in  a 
single  place;  and  it  follows  that  some  of  the  material  apparently  preserved 
by  the  ‘806  version’,  after  733,  could  have  come  through  other  channels. 
Nevertheless,  existence  must  not  be  equated  with  availability:  the  lack  of 
distinctive  northern  entries  in  the  D and  E versions  of  the  Chronicle  after 
806— a lack  that  persists  for  a hundred  years — would  suggest  that  very 
little  information,  except  the  Northumbrian  Annals,  was  ever  available  to 
the  archetype. 

Most  of  the  divergences,  therefore,  between  the  ‘802  version’  and  the 
‘806  version’  are  probably  due  to  the  latter  having  been  augmented  and 
interpolated  before  its  story  came  to  a close.  And  a working  hypothesis 
can  now  be  formed  along  the  following  lines.  The  original  Northumbrian 
Annals  were  copied  in  802,  or  803,  and  a descendant  of  this  copy  fell  into 
Simeon’s  hands  early  in  the  twelfth  century.  Meanwhile  the  parent  version 
was  continued  and  expanded  until  806,  perhaps  with  additions  taking  the 
record  back  to  705,  a descendant  of  that  copy  becoming  available  to  the 
Chronicler  early  in  the  eleventh  century,  or  late  in  the  tenth.  And  in  saying 
so  much  we  are  not  denying  that  the  Chronicler  could  have  had  other 
eighth-century  sources  to  draw  upon,  although  the  indications  are  that 
such  sources  were  of  minor  importance. 

The  place  where  the  Northumbrian  Annals  were  written  in  the  first 
instance  must  remain  a matter  of  conjecture: 

Mr.  Plummer’s  choice  of  Ripon  is  curious,  seeing  that  events  there  are 
only  mentioned  three  times  ( sub  annis  786,  787,  and  790)  in  a period  of 
seventy  years  or  so;  other  opinions  have  favoured  York  or  Hexham.  And 
the  history  of  the  two  versions  until  they  reached  the  Chronicler  and  Simeon 
is  not  likely  to  be  recovered  in  any  detail.  But  if  we  ask  where,  in  the 
north,  at  the  end  of  the  tenth  or  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  century, 
could  the  Annals  have  been  incorporated  into  the  Chronicle,  the  answer  is 
limited  to  a very  few  places.  Jarrow,  Monkwearmouth,  Whitby  and  many 
smaller  houses  had  been  wrecked  by  the  Danes;  Melrose  and  Whithorn  had 
also  disappeared.  The  bishopric  of  Hexham  came  to  an  end  circa  820,  and 
community  life  there  seems  to  have  stopped  after  875.  Ripon  suffered  the 
unusual  fate  of  being  destroyed  by  an  English  king,  Eadred,  in  948;  although 
monasticism  was  perhaps  revived  under  Archbishop  Oswald,  the  church  led 
a shadowy  existence  until  much  later  times.  Beverley  and  Southwell  are 
in  no  better  case. 1 Thus  the  compiler  of  the  D,  E type  of  Chronicle  should 
be  sought  among  the  familiae  of  the  bishops  of  York  and  Durham  (or 
Chester-le-Street) ; yet  if  the  difference  between  the  ‘802  version’  and  the 
‘806  version’  is  accepted,  the  latter  place  becomes  rather  unlikely.  Quite 
apart  from  any  other  evidence,  therefore,  the  northern  church  that  makes 
the  most  appropriate  home  for  the  archetype  of  D and  E is  York. 

Another  feature  of  the  D,  E archetype  points  in  the  same  direction. 
Although  it  is  not  possible  to  decide,  in  every  case,  why  the  Chronicler 
selected  some  topics  from  the  Northumbrian  Annals  and  omitted  others, 
two  facts  can  be  established  in  a general  way:  he  was  at  pains  to  preserve 
the  details  of  episcopal  consecrations  and  obits  in  the  northern  Province, 
for  the  sees  of  York,  Hexham,  Lindisfarne  and  Whithorn;  but  he  ignored 
the  Irish  bishops  of  Mayo,  and  particulars  relating  to  Mercian  sees  at 

1 For  a discussion  of  these  Northumbrian  communities  see  A.  Hamilton 
Thompson  in  Bede,  His  Life,  Times,  and  Writings,  Oxford  1935. 



Hereford,  Leicester,  Lichfield,  Lindsey,  London  and  Worcester,  and  the 
East  Anglian  sees  of  Dunwich  and  Elmham,  and  the  bishopric  of  Selsey. 1 

The  first  fact  is  demonstrated  by  comparing  a list  of  entries2  in  the 
‘802  version’  and  the  D,  E chronicle  : 

734,  Frithuberht  consecrated  to  Hexham,  8 Sept,  (not  entered  into 
the  Chronicle  under  this  year,  but  the  length  of  his  episcopate  is  given, 
somewhat  inaccurately,  sub  anno  766).  735,  Ecgberht  received  the  pallium. 
740,  TEthelwold  of  Lindisfarne  died,  also  Acca  of  Hexham  (who  had  been 
expelled  in  731);  Cynewulf  succeeded  to  Lindisfarne.  745,  Wilfrid  II  of 
York  died.  764,  Frithuwold  of  Whithorn  died  (the  Chronicle  adds  the  length 
of  his  episcopate,  and  the  month  and  day  of  his  consecration  and  of  his 
death — above,  p.  245)  and  Pehtwine  succeeded  him  (the  Chronicle  adds 
‘on  17  July’).  766,  Ecgberht  of  York  died,  19  Nov.,  and  Frithuberht  of 
Hexham,  23  Dec.  (the  Chronicle  omitting  the  latter  date).  767,  TEthelberht 
consecrated  to  York  and  Alhmund  to  Hexham,  24  April  (the  Chronicle  omits 
the  date).  773,  TEthelberht  received  the  pallium  (omitted  by  the  Chronicle). 
777,  Pehtwine  of  Whithorn  died  (the  Chronicle’s  year  776  is  probably 
correct);  TEthelberht  consecrated  to  Whithorn  (the  Chronicle  adds  ‘on  15 
June').  780,  TEthelberht  of  York  died;  Cynewulf  of  Lindisfarne  resigned; 
Eanbald  I of  York  received  the  pallium.  781,  Higbald  consecrated  to 
Lindisfarne;  Alhmund  of  Hexham  died,  7 Sept.,  and  Tilberht  succeeded 
him,  2 Oct.  783,  Cynewulf  of  Lindisfarne  died.  790,  Badwulf  consecrated 
to  Whithorn,  TEthelberht  having  been  translated  to  Hexham  on  the  death 
of  Tilberht,  789  (the  Chronicle  omits  this  translation  and  the  reason  for  it, 
but  adds  the  date  of  Badwulf ’s  consecration).  796,  Eanbald  I of  York 
died,  10  Aug.,  and  Eanbald  II  succeeded  on  14  Aug.  797;  Eanbald  II  re- 
ceived the  pallium.  8 Sept.;  TEthelberht  of  Hexham  died,  16  Oct.,  and 
Heardred  succeeded  him,  30  Oct.  800,  Heardred  of  Hexham  died  and 
Eanberht  succeeded  (the  Chronicle  omits). 

Apart  from  a few  minor  slips,  the  Chronicler  has  failed  to  preserve 
only  three  items  of  ecclesiastical  importance  : 

773,  TEthelberht’s  reception  of  the  pallium;  789,  the  translation  of  a 
different  TEthelberht;  800,  the  death  of  Heardred,  and  Eanberht’s  con- 
secration. TEthelberht’s  having  received  the  pallium  is  obvious  from  another 
annal  (780)  and  may  not  have  been  mentioned  on  that  score;  but  the  second 
and  third  omissions  must  be  set  down  to  inadvertence  rather  than  design. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  may  feel  fairly  sure  that  the  Chronicler  designedly 
left  out  Mercian,  East  Anglian  and  Irish  intelligence  : 

732  ( recte  731),  Cyneberht  of  Lindsey  died.  733,  Alwiu  of  Lindsey 
and  Sigeferth  of  Selsey  consecrated.  736,  Cuthbert  consecrated  to  Hereford, 
Heardwold  to  Dunwich,  TEthelfrith  to  Elmham.  737,  Ealdwine  of  Lichfield 
died;  Hwitta  consecrated  to  Lichfield,  Totta  to  Leicester.  745,  ‘The  Bishop 
of  the  Hwicce’  (Wilfrid  of  Worcester)  died;  Ingwold  of  London  died.  750, 
Alwiu  of  Lindsey  died  and  Ealdwulf  succeeded.  764,  Totta  of  Leicester 
died  and  Eadberht  succeeded.  765,  Hemele  of  Lichfield  died  and  Cuthred 
succeeded;  Ealdwulf  of  Lindsey  died  and  Ceolwulf  succeeded  (in  767). 
768,  Hadwine  consecrated  to  Mayo.  773,  Hadwine  died  and  Leodfrith 
succeeded  to  Mayo.  786,  Ealdwulf  of  Mayo  consecrated.  796,  Ceolwulf  of 
Lindsey  died.  801,  Heathuberht  of  London  died. 

Of  all  these  items  only  the  last  but  one  has  been  entered  into  the 
Chronicle,  perhaps  by  oversight. 3 It  is  scarcely  likely  that  such  a number 

1 He  of  course  retained  the  southern  entries  of  the  Chronicle  text  that 
was  his  exemplar. 

2 Here  much  abbreviated,  the  dates  being  those  of  the  Historia  Regum, 
as  before. 

3 We  learn,  however,  from  the  A version  of  the  Chronicle  that  in  794 
( recte  796)  Ceolwulf  ‘left  the  country’,  which  might  mean  his  removing  from 
Mercia  to  Northumbria;  and  the  retention  of  his  name,  sandwiched  between 
two  York  notices,  could  be  deliberate  if  he  had  died  in  the  city. 



of  notices  could  have  dropped  out  while  the  ‘806  version’  was  in  process  of 
being  copied,  for  we  saw  earlier  that  this  text  appears  to  have  been  rather 
more  elaborate  than  the  ‘802  version’,  in  matters  relating  both  to  church 
and  state. 

From  the  pointed  exclusion  of  ecclesiastical  detail  not  concerned  with 
the  Province  of  York  we  are  driven  to  infer  that  the  Chronicler’s  interests 
were  confined  to  that  area. 1 Faced  with  the  task  of  producing  a local 
variant  of  the  national  history,  he  added  not  only  the  lives  and  deaths  of 
Northumbrian  kings  but  also  the  careers  of  bishops — thus  making  a register 
of  higher  clergy  for  the  Province  as  it  was  constituted  in  the  eighth  century. 
It  is  hard  to  imagine  that  such  an  enterprise  would  have  been  undertaken 
in  any  place  but  York,  or,  at  least,  sponsored  by  anyone  except  an  archbishop. 

1 This  inference  would  still  hold  even  if  the  distinction  between  the  two 
versions  of  Northumbrian  Annals  is  not  real;  that  is,  even  if  the  Chronicler 
were  working  from  the  ‘802  version’  only,  supplemented  by  episcopal  lists 
and  Paschal  annals.  But  the  failure  to  use  supplementary  sources  after  806 
would  then  be  hard  to  explain. 



By  Martha  J.  Ellis. 


*This  study  has  been  made  possible  by  an  American  Association  of 
University  Women  grant  of  the  Kathryn  McHale  Fellowship  for  the  year 
1957-1958  as  well  as  by  grants  from  Hollins  College,  Virginia,  and  the 
Danforth  Foundation. 

The  following  abbreviations  have  been  used: — 

BL:  Bodleian  Library 

BM:  British  Museum 

CD : Chancery  Depositions 

CP:  Chancery  Proceedings 

C,  PR:  Chancery,  Patent  Rolls 

DL,  D:  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  Depositions 

DL,  D and  O:  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  Decrees  and  Orders 

DL,  P:  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  Pleadings 

DL,  R and  S:  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  Rentals  and  Surveys 

DL,  SC:  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  Special  Commissions 

E,  B and  A:  Exchequer,  Bills  and  Answers 

ED:  Exchequer,  Depositions 

E,  D and  O:  Exchequer,  Decrees  and  Orders 

HX:  Halifax 

LP  Lib:  Leeds  Public  Library 

PRO:  Public  Record  Office 

RA  MSS:  Rufford  Abbey  Manuscripts 

SH:  Shibden  Hall 

SPD:  State  Papers,  Domestic 

St.  Ch.:  Star  Chamber 

THAS:  Transactions  of  the  Halifax  Antiquarian  Society 
TN:  Temple  Newsam 

TRHS:  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Historical  Society 

WMCR:  Wakefield  Manor  Court  Roll 

Y A J : Yorkshire  Archaeological  Journal 

YAS  Lib.:  Yorkshire  Archaeological  Society  Library 

YAS  Rec.  Ser.:  Yorkshire  Archaeological  Society  Record  Series 

Nineteenth  century  historians  were  scholars  chiefly  concerned 
with  political  and  institutional  development,  but  historical 
research  in  the  twentieth  century  has  been  more  and  more  focussed 
on  the  economic  and  social  aspects  of  the  past.  Although  many 
would  not  agree  with  Karl  Marx  that  life  is  completely  determined 
by  economic  motivations,  many  have  become  very  cognizant  of 
the  importance  of  economic  and  social  developments  in  history. 
Group  projects  for  the  study  of  agricultural  and  economic  history 
have  become  popular.  The  local  historian  also  has  gained  an 
important  place  for  himself  in  the  realm  of  historical  scholarship, 



since  monographic  studies  on  local  areas  greatly  ease  the  way  to 
accomplishing  larger  studies  and  more  satisfactory  generalizations. 

Long  accepted  theories  and  terminology  have  been  re- 
examined. Sharp  controversy  has  arisen  over  the  phrase  “ early 
modern”  as  denoting  a distinct  period  of  history,  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries.  Some  historians  have  devoted  their 
energies  to  showing  that  this  period  was  without  precedent  in 
most  of  its  features,  while  others  have  been  very  much  concerned 
with  the  remnants  of  medieval  life.  Before  R.  H.  Tawney’s  book 
on  the  agrarian  crisis  of  the  sixteenth  century,  little  attention 
had  been  paid  to  the  feudal-manorial  system  of  rural  life  in  that 
period.  Since  then  with  the  ever  increasing  interest  in  the  en- 
closure movement  several  other  studies  have  been  made  which 
reveal  the  extent  to  which  feudal-manorial  structure  was  still 
present  in  some  parts  of  Elizabethan  and  Jacobean  England.1 
Always  a practical  system,  manorialism  seems  to  have  been 
frequently  maintained  where  it  still  served  a profitable  purpose 
for  the  lords  and  their  tenants. 

To  use  the  term  “early  modern”  without  modification  is 
certainly  misleading  in  the  case  of  the  West  Riding  in  the  six- 
teenth and  seventeenth  centuries.  Although  feudalism  and 
manorialism  in  their  broadest  sense  had  already  lost  much  of 
their  original  significance  in  the  face  of  the  emergence  of  numerous 
urban  centres  and  the  development  of  the  domestic  system  in 
the  cloth  industry,  some  manorial  characteristics  still  remained 
to  affect  the  pattern  of  economic  and  social  life  in  some  parts  of  the 
Riding.  Indeed,  there  seems  to  have  been  a revival  of  certain 
manorial  features  in  this  period  in  spite  of  the  development  of 
important  industrial  areas.  Halifax  parish  in  the  Wapentake  of 
Agbrigg-Morley  serves  as  an  excellent  example  both  of  the  revival 
and  of  the  continuation  of  some  manorial  characteristics.  Within 
the  manorial  framework  a persistent  struggle  was  waged  for 
advantages.  On  one  side  the  landlords  demanded  the  reinstate- 
ment of  and  the  close  adherence  to  certain  lucrative  features  like 
the  lord’s  right  to  mills  and  special  fines.  On  the  other  side  were 
the  tenants  eager  to  improve  their  incomes,  but  in  some  cases 
reluctant  to  give  up  their  manorial  benefits. 

Topographically  Halifax  parish  with  its  twenty-five  town- 
ships2 lies  on  the  sloping  declivities  of  the  Pennine  range.  Much 

1 See  R.  H.  Tawney,  The  Agrarian  Problem  in  the  Sixteenth  Century 
(New  York,  1912);  Joan  Thirsk,  English  Peasant  Farming  (London,  1957); 
W.  G.  Hoskins,  The  Midland  Peasant  (London,  1957);  and  S.  H.  Waters, 
Wakefield  in  the  Seventeenth  Century  (Wakefield,  1933),  as  good  examples. 

2 As  an  ecclesiastical  and  civil  unit  in  the  sixteenth  century  Halifax 
parish  consisted  of  twenty-five  townships.  Ten  of  these  were  in  the  parochial 
district;  Halifax,  Sowerby,  Northowram,  Warley,  Ovenden,  Southowram, 
Hipperholm  cum  Brighouse,  Skircoat,  Midgley,  and  Shelf.  The  other  town- 
ships were  divided  between  Elland  Chapelry  and  Heptonstall  Chapelry. 
The  former  consisted  of  Elland  cum  Greetland,  Barkisland,  Fixby,  Norland, 
Rastrick,  Rishworth,  Soyland,  and  Stainland;  the  latter  of  Heptonstall, 
Erringden,  Langfield,  Stansfield,  and  Wadworth.  John  Crabtree,  A Concise 
History  of  the  Parish  and  Vicarage  of  Halifax  (Halifax,  1836),  317,  430,  501. 



of  the  land  is  either  moorlands  or  part  of  the  Coal  Measure.  With 
an  increase  in  the  population  the  produce  and  general  income 
from  the  land  was  no  longer  sufficient  to  maintain  the  inhabitants. 
By  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century  many  of  them  had  begun  to 
devote  more  and  more  of  their  energies  to  the  raising  of  sheep 
and  to  the  woollen  cloth  industry,  but  few  abandoned  farming 
completely.  In  Halifax  parish,  as  in  the  rest  of  the  West  Riding 
of  Yorkshire,  the  woollen  industry  developed  within  the  frame- 
work of  a rural  community  which  persisted  even  when  Halifax 
was  one  of  the  chief  producers  of  kersey  cloth  in  the  North  at 
the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  cottage  industrial  system 
was  not  seriously  changed  until  the  eighteenth  century  by  which 
time  the  manorial  characteristics  were  also  fast  fading  away. 

In  the  sixteenth  century  the  parish  lay  within  the  Duchy 
of  Lancaster,  which  had  been  declared  a special  administrative 
unit  in  1399  by  Henry  IV,  the  first  of  the  Lancastrian  kings. 
The  lands  in  the  Duchy  were  Henry’s  family  inheritance  and 
were  to  remain  distinct  from  the  lands  he  had  received  when  he 
became  king.  A chancellor  and  a council  of  the  Duchy  were 
established  to  govern  the  area  and  to  see  that  justice  was  done 
to  all  its  tenants.  Within  the  Duchy  there  were  many  divisions 
some  of  which  were  much  older  in  origin  than  the  Duchy  itself. 
Two  of  these  older  areas  were  the  Honour  of  Pontefract  and  the 
Manor  of  Wakefield  under  whose  jurisdictions  Halifax  came,  for 
twenty-two  of  its  townships  were  in  the  Manor  of  Wakefield  and 
three  of  its  townships  came  within  the  Honour  of  Pontefract. 

At  the  time  of  the  Norman  Conquest  both  the  Honour  and 
the  Manor  were  in  the  hands  of  the  crown  and  in  the  sixteenth 
century  were  still  regarded  as  ancient  demesne,  which  meant 
that  the  tenants  could  not  have  the  stipulated  conditions  of 
their  tenures  altered  against  their  wishes.1  At  the  time  of  the 
Domesday  Book  much  of  the  land  in  the  West  Riding  was  divided 
between  Ilbert  de  Lacy  and  William  the  Conqueror.  Some  twenty- 
five  towns  in  Morley  Wapentake  and  the  greater  part  of  one 

1 The  tenants  of  ancient  demesne  were  also  free  from  toll  in  all  the 
markets  within  the  Manor  and  the  Honour.  See  J.  W.  Walker,  Wakefield, 
Its  History  and  People  (Wakefield,  1934),  73.  The  privileges  of  toll  were  not 
forgotten  even  by  the  sixteenth  century.  In  the  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls, 
1558-1560  (p.  369)  is  an  order  issued  in  1560  to  all  sheriffs  which  stated 
that  Halifax  among  other  towns  in  the  Manor  of  Wakefield  was  to  be  free 
of  tolls  because  it  was  ancient  demesne.  The  Rev.  Nelson  cited  a charter 
granted  first  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI  and  then  renewed  by  James  I which 
stated  that  Halifax  was  free  of  all  tolls  throughout  the  realm  since  it  was 
ancient  demesne.  The  History  of  the  Town  and  Parish  of  Halifax  (London, 
1789),  41-42.  In  1562  John  Savile  and  several  other  chapmen  brought  an 
action  against  the  sheriff  of  Nottingham  who  had  seized  certain  packets  of 
cloth  which  were  on  their  way  from  Wakefield  to  London.  He  was  demanding 
one  penny  for  every  pack,  but  the  plaintiffs  claimed  that  they  had  freedom 
from  toll  by  right  of  ancient  demesne.  In  spite  of  the  previous  order  the 
Duchy  court  decided  in  favour  of  the  sheriff,  stating  that  the  rights  of  ancient 
demesne  could  not  be  extended  that  far  afield.  J.  W.  Walker,  Wakefield, 
336-337.  See  PRO,  DL,  P 1/118/S15,  which  is  a similar  case  (22  Elizabeth  IJ. 



hundred  and  fifty  manors  in  the  West  Riding  had  been  given  to 
de  Lacy  about  1067  as  the  Honour  of  Pontefract.  The  lands 
held  by  the  king,  known  in  the  1080s  as  the  “soc  of  Wakefield”, 
were  not  granted  until  the  early  twelfth  century.1  However,  the 
holdings  of  the  king  and  the  de  Lacy  family  were  not  completely 
identical  with  the  holdings  of  the  Honour  and  the  Manor  in  the 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  though  the  differences  were 

Ilbert  de  Lacy,  as  lord  of  the  Honour,  built  his  castle  at 
Pontefract  which  became  the  centre  of  the  liberty  where  the 
courts  were  held.3  The  de  Lacy  family  continued  its  control  over 
this  Honour  until  Alice  de  Lacy,  the  only  daughter  and  heiress 
of  Henry  de  Lacy,  the  last  Earl  of  Lincoln,  married  the  Earl  of 
Lancaster  at  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century.  When  the  Earl 
of  Lancaster  became  king  of  England  as  Henry  IV,  this  estate 
was  included  in  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  and  constituted  one  of 
the  most  important  honours  in  England  at  that  time.4  By  1608, 
according  to  a survey,  the  Honour  contained  only  eighteen  manors.5 
In  1618  James  I assigned  it  to  Queen  Anne  and  the  yearly  income 
to  the  crown  was  given  at  this  time  as  £131  6s  8d.6 

The  Norman  kings  held  the  Manor  of  Wakefield  longer  than 
the  Honour,  for  it  was  not  until  the  early  twelfth  century  that 
the  Manor  with  Sandal  Castle  as  its  baronial  seat  was  assigned  to 
William,  the  Earl  of  Warenne  and  Surrey.7  At  this  time  nearly 

1 According  to  the  present  Clerk  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  Robert 
Somerville,  the  Manor  of  Wakefield  was  included  in  the  territory  of  the 
Honour  of  Pontefract,  but  if  this  was  true  it  was  only  in  theory  for  there 
is  no  proof  of  the  Honour  having  had  any  jurisdiction  directly  over  the 
Manor.  See  Robert  Somerville,  History  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  (London, 
1953),  523.  See  also  Charles  Travis  Clay,  ed.,  Early  Yorkshire  Charters, 
The  Honour  of  Warenne,  YAS  Rec.  Ser.,  Extra  Series,  VI  (Wakefield,  1949), 
180.  The  latter  definitely  refers  to  two  separate  areas. 

2 An  example  of  these  discrepancies  can  be  found  in  the  case  of 
Quarmby  which  was  to  be  a part  of  the  Wakefield  Manor  later  but  at  the 
time  of  Domesday  was  in  the  hands  of  Ilbert  de  Lacy.  However,  the  king 
held  Greetland  which  was  to  become  a part  of  the  Honour.  Edward  Parsons, 
The  Civil,  Ecclesiastical,  Literary,  Commercial,  and  Miscellaneous  History  of 
Leeds,  Halifax,  Huddersfield,  Bradford,  Wakefield,  Dewsbury,  Otley,  and  the 
Manufacturing  District  of  Yorkshire  (Leeds,  1834),  I,  37;  Lorenzo  Padgett, 
Chronicles  of  Old  Pontefract  (Pontefract,  1905),  54-55;  and  William  Farrer, 
ed.,  “Translation  of  the  Yorkshire  Domesday,"  The  Victoria  History  of  the 
County  of  York,  William  Page,  ed.  (London,  1912),  II,  300-303. 

3 Padgett,  38,  54. 

4 Parsons,  I,  93-94;  and  Thomas  Allen,  A New  and  Complete  History 
of  the  County  of  York  (London,  1831),  V,  326-328.  See  also  Somerville, 
History  of  the  Duchy,  19,  22. 

5 PRO,  SPD,  v.  37,  nos.  106-107. 

6 Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  of  the  Reign  of  James  I, 

1611-1618,  IX  (London,  1858),  379  (Sign  Man.  vol.  VI,  no.  14) 

7 The  date  is  uncertain.  The  grant  was  probably  not  made  earlier  than 
1098,  nor  later  than  1121.  In  all  probability  the  earliest  date  it  could  have 
been  granted  was  1106  or  1107.  See  Clay,  ed.,  Early  Yorkshire  Charters, 
VI,  178.  Walker  placed  it  earlier  than  this,  but  he  stated  no  definite  date. 
J.  W.  Walker,  Wakefield,  48. 


all  the  townships  which  were  to  make  up  the  parish  of  Halifax 
were  included  in  this  manor,  which  stretched  more  than  thirty 
miles  from  Normanton  westward  to  the  border  of  Lancashire  and 
contained  some  one  hundred  and  fifty  towns,  villages,  and  hamlets 
as  well  as  many  sub-manors.1  The  Warenne  family  continued  to 
hold  the  Manor  until  the  fourteenth  century  when  the  Earl  had 
no  legitimate  heir.  Edward  III  granted  the  Manor  to  the  Earl’s 
natural  son,  but  at  his  death  it  passed  to  the  Duke  of  York, 
therefore  eventually  becoming  crown  land  once  more.  Unlike  the 
Honour  of  Pontefract,  the  Manor  of  Wakefield  was  not  included 
in  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  until  1558. 2 In  1629  Charles  I gave 
the  Manor  to  Henry,  the  Earl  of  Holland.3  The  Earl  of  Holland, 
in  turn,  granted  it  a year  later  as  part  of  the  marriage  portion  of 
his  daughter,  who  was  marrying  Sir  Gervase  Clifton  of  Nottingham. 
In  1663  the  latter  sold  the  Manor  to  Sir  Christopher  Clapham,  in 
whose  family  estates  it  remained  until  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century  when  the  land  passed  to  the  dukes  of 

Both  the  Honour  and  the  Manor  when  they  belonged  to  the 
king  were  administered  by  stewards  who  governed  the  king’s 
estates  as  his  representative,  preserving  his  rights  to  preside  at 
the  manorial  courts  and  his  power  to  inquire  into  matters  which 
directly  concerned  the  whole  manor.  The  stewards  or  their 
deputies  with  the  aid  of  their  bailiffs  were  also  to  see  that  all 
rents  were  paid  to  the  king.5  In  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries  the  stewards  were  either  knights  or  nobles  and  among 
the  leading  citizens  of  the  North  of  England.  At  the  time  of  the 
Pilgrimage  of  Grace  the  Tempest  family  seems  to  have  been  the 
most  important  in  the  area,  for  Sir  Richard  Tempest  was  steward 
of  the  Manor  and  his  son-in-law,  Lord  d’Arcy,  was  steward  of 
the  Honour.6  Sir  John  Tempest  succeeded  his  father  and  remained 
steward  of  the  Manor  until  his  death  in  1565.  By  this  time  the 
Tempests  appear  to  have  lost  control  in  the  Honour  to  their 
rivals,  the  Saviles,  who  now  controlled  both  the  Manor  and  the 

1 Allen,  V,  452. 

2 Somerville,  History  of  the  Duchy,  302. 

3 Charles  I granted  this  Manor  as  partial  repayment  of  the  £25,000 
he  owed  to  Henry,  who  had  been  created  Earl  of  Holland  just  before  James 
I died.  Henry  was  beheaded  in  1649  for  his  part  in  the  attempted  restoration 
of  Charles  II.  J.  W.  Walker,  Wakefield,  367. 

4 Ibid.,  367-368. 

5 The  stewards  had  many  other  interests  and  seldom  personally  held 
courts;  instead  they  appointed  deputies.  For  example,  Robert  Greenwood 
of  the  Inner  Temple,  gentleman,  was  appointed  as  deputy  in  1587  by  the 
Wakefield  Manor  steward.  He  belonged  to  the  well-to-do  Greenwood  family 
of  Greenwood  Lee  in  Heptonstall,  a township  in  Halifax  parish.  See  YAS 
Lib.,  WMCR,  1587. 

6 Lord  d’Arcy  was  convicted  of  treason  and  executed  in  1537  because 
he  had  surrendered  Pontefract  to  the  rebels  during  the  Pilgrimage  of  Grace. 
Somerville,  History  of  the  Duchy,  515. 



Honour.1  Henry  Savile  became  steward  of  both  liberties  until 
his  death  in  1569. 2 For  a short  time  the  Saviles  did  not  hold  the 
office  of  steward  for  either  the  Honour  or  the  Manor,  but  in  1588 
Edward  Carey,  esquire,  a distant  cousin  of  Queen  Elizabeth  and 
groom  of  the  Privy  Chamber,  and  Sir  John  Savile  of  Howley, 
Carey’s  son-in-law,  became  joint  stewards  of  the  Manor.  According 
to  the  manor  rolls  the  two  men  remained  joint  stewards  until 
1617.  The  1618  court  was  held  by  Sir  John  alone  but  by  1619 
his  son,  Thomas,  was  holding  the  court  as  steward.  Sir  John  was 
also  steward  of  the  Honour  before  he  died  in  1630.  He  was  one 
of  the  chief  supporters  of  the  West  Riding  clothiers  and  was 
politically  very  active  in  opposition  to  Thomas  Wentworth  who 
later  became  Lord  Strafford,  the  well-known  minister  of  Charles  I.3 

Although  the  areas  of  the  Honour  and  the  Manor  were 
administered  as  single  units  by  stewards  and  their  subordinates, 
there  were  individual  lords  of  the  sub-manors  who  were  eager  to 
gain  as  much  profit  as  possible  from  their  rights  to  demand  suit 
to  mills  and  courts  which  they  had  either  been  given  or  had 
bought  when  they  obtained  their  sub-manors.  Not  only  did  the 
Saviles  control  the  position  of  steward  by  the  seventeenth  century, 
but  they  also  controlled  most  of  these  sub-manors  within  the 
parish  of  Halifax.  As  early  as  the  fourteenth  century,  after  the 
Elland  family  had  been  murdered  in  a local  feud,  the  Saviles  held 
Elland  cum  Greetland  and  Southowram,  the  three  townships  in 
the  Honour.  At  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  Sir  William  Savile  still 
held  Elland  cum  Greetland,  but  as  early  as  the  sixteenth  century 
Southowram  had  passed  to  the  Lacy  family  of  Cromwellbothom 
in  Halifax  parish.  From  the  Lacy  estate  it  passed  to  Thomas 
Whitley  in  the  reign  of  James  I. 

1 The  antagonism  between  some  members  of  the  two  families  is  evident 
in  the  struggle  between  inhabitants  of  the  parish  of  Halifax  and  the  vicar, 
Robert  Holdsworth,  at  the  time  of  the  Pilgrimage  of  Grace.  See  Joseph 
Smith  Fletcher,  The  Reformation  in  Northern  England  (London,  1925),  134, 
136-144.  Sir  John  Tempest  was  also  steward  of  Bradford  and  constable  of 
Sandal.  Somerville,  History  of  the  Duchy,  523. 

2 Somerville,  History  of  the  Duchy,  523.  In  the  Honour  Savile  shared 
the  position  with  Lord  Talbot  who  later  became  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury 
in  1560.  The  Earl  died  in  1589  and  his  son  became  steward.  Henry  Savile 
of  Lupset,  esquire,  was  the  Crown  Surveyor  in  the  North,  constable  of 
Sandal  and  Pontefract  and  steward  of  Barnoldswick  and  Bradford  besides 
holding  the  position  of  steward  in  both  the  Manor  and  the  Honour.  He  was 
a member  of  parliament  in  1558,  sheriff  of  the  county  in  1567,  and  a member 
of  the  Council  of  the  North.  John  William  Clay,  The  Extinct  and  Dormant 
Peerages  of  the  Northern  Counties  of  England  (London,  1913),  191. 

3 Sir  John  was  a great  benefactor  to  Leeds  and  in  1626  he  was  chosen 
the  first  mayor  since  he  was  in  large  measure  responsible  for  the  incorporation 
of  Leeds.  See  Somerville,  History  of  the  Duchy,  515.  He  was  also  steward 
of  Bradford,  from  time  to  time  member  of  parliament  for  the  county  of 
York,  one-time  keeper  of  the  rolls  for  the  West  Riding.  In  1628  he  was 
created  Baron  Savile  of  Pontefract,  two  years  before  he  died.  Calendar  of 
State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  of  the  Reign  of  Charles  I,  1628-1629,  III 
(1859),  222  (Coll.  Sign  Man,  Car.  I,  vol.  ix,  no.  26).  His  son  Thomas  who 
later  became  Baron  of  Pontefract  continued  as  steward  of  the  Manor  even 
after  it  was  given  to  the  Earl  of  Holland  in  1629.  See  Manor  Rolls. 


Of  the  twenty-two  townships  in  Halifax  parish  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Manor,  the  township  of  Midgley  was  held  as  a 
sub-manor  by  John  Lacy  of  Brearley  until  1590,  when  his  daughter 
married  Henry  Farrer  of  Eawood,  who  became  the  next  lord  of 
the  manor.1  It  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Farrer  family  until 
the  eighteenth  century.  The  Saviles  held  Barkisland,  Norland, 
Northowram,  Rish worth,  Ovenden,  Wadsworth,  Stansfield,  Warley, 
Stainland,  Skircoat  and  Shelf.  Without  a doubt  branches  of  the  Savile 
family  were  the  most  important  landholders  in  the  parish.  Other 
lords  of  sub-manors  in  the  parish  included  Robert  Ealand  who  was 
holding  a court  baron  in  Hipperholme  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth.2 
The  Thornhill  family  had  controlled  the  manor  of  Fixby  since 
the  fourteenth  century  and  part  of  the  manor  of  Rastrick.3 
Robert  Ramsden,  a member  of  an  important  clothier-landholding 
family  not  only  in  Halifax  but  also  in  Huddersfield,  held  the  rest 
of  Rastrick  as  the  twentieth  part  of  a knight’s  fee  from  the  crown. 

The  most  important  manor  in  the  parish  was  the  rectory 
manor  of  Halifax,  which  lay  within  the  Manor  of  Wakefield  and 
included  both  the  townships  of  Halifax  and  Heptonstall  as  well 
as  a few  rents  in  Elland,  Hipperholme,  Northowram,  Southowram, 
and  Ovenden.  At  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  or  in  the  first 
part  of  the  twelfth  century  the  Earl  of  Warenne  endowed  the 
church  in  Halifax  with  considerable  land.4  In  1147  the  third  Earl 
bestowed  this  endowment  and  the  right  to  the  church’s  advowson 
on  the  Priory  of  Lewes  in  Sussex  which  his  family  had  helped  to 
establish  shortly  after  the  Norman  Conquest.5  The  pope  declared 
the  church  a vicarage  and  designated  the  area  for  the  new  parish 
in  1273.  The  parish  church  with  its  endowment  was  now  a rectory 
manor  held  by  the  Priory  from  which  the  vicar  was  to  receive 
an  income  from  the  tithes  of  mills,  calves,  and  death  duties,  if  in 
return  he  paid  £4  13s  to  the  Priory.6  As  early  as  1510  the  tithes 
to  which  the  Priory  had  a right  were  being  collected  by  John 
Waterhouse,  and  in  1533  the  Prior  leased  the  Great  Tithes  of  the 
vicarage,  as  well  as  Shibden  Hall,  to  Robert  Waterhouse  of 
Halifax  for  terms  of  three  successive  ninety-nine  year  periods.7 
This  was,  indeed,  a complex  situation,  for  the  so-called  manor 
was  held  by  the  Priory,  and  the  tithes  were  farmed  by  the  Waterhouse 

1 Farrer  sold  the  estate  in  Halifax  parish  to  his  brother  and  moved 
to  Lancashire  around  1623.  Burke’s  Genealogical  and  Heraldic  History  of 
the  Landed  Gentry  (London,  1937),  754. 

2 (Nelson),  65. 

3 See  Clay,  ed.,  Early  Yorkshire  Charters,  VI,  196. 

4 W.  K.  Barnes  and  I.  M.  Longbotham,  Halifax  Parish  Church  (Glou- 
cester, n.d.),  7;  and  LP  Lib.,  Edward  Johnson  Walker  Collection,  MSS. 
relating  to  Halifax  Parish  Church,  MS/YH139(283)a.  The  former  wrote 
that  it  was  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  and  the  latter  sometime  after  1138. 

5 See  Clay,  ed.,  Early  Yorkshire  Charters,  VI,  201. 

6 LP  Lib.,  MS/YH139(283)a. 

7 LP  Lib.,  TN/HX/A19.  This  meant  that  the  Waterhouse  family 
was  to  control  the  tithes  until  1733.  See  LP  Lib.,  TN/HX/A54;  and  Hugh 
P.  Kendall,  ed.,  “The  Rental  of  the  Freeholders  and  Copyholders  of  Halifax, 
1587-8,”  THAS  (1930),  10. 



family,  but  the  manor  continued  to  be  a part  of  the  Manor  of  Wake- 
field. At  the  Dissolution,  the  Priory  passed  to  the  crown,  which  once 
more  controlled  the  manor  of  Halifax,  but  the  lease  of  the  tithes  was 
allowed  to  continue.  The  manor  passed  from  the  control  of  Thomas 
Cromwell  to  Anne  of  Cleves  as  part  of  her  dowry.  By  a sale  in 
1 545  J ohn  Waterhouse  and  his  son  Robert  became  owners  of  this  sub- 
manor, which  was  still  to  remain  part  of  the  Manor  of  Wakefield.1 

About  1606  Sir  Edward  Waterhouse,  now  the  owner  of  the 
manor  had  serious  financial  difficulties  which  forced  him  to  give 
up  the  manor  to  Sir  Arthur  Ingram,  who  was  a friend  of  Lionel 
Cranfield  and  seems  to  have  been  on  friendly  terms  with  Thomas 
Wentworth.2  By  Letters  Patent  the  estate  was  formally  bestowed 
on  Ingram  in  the  seventh  year  of  James’  reign.3  Sir  Arthur  used 
the  manor  to  make  money,  enfranchising  land,  taking  on  suit 
after  suit  to  insure  his  right  to  control  the  mills,  and,  in  general, 
keeping  close  watch  on  all  his  interests.4  In  1626  he  sold  Hepton- 

1 LP  Lib.,  TN/HX/A36.  Their  manor  house  was  Shibden  Hall  in 
Northowram,  only  a short  distance  from  the  town  of  Halifax.  When  Sir 
Arthur  Ingram  bought  the  estate  he  did  not  use  Shibden  Hall,  for  when 
he  stayed  in  Yorkshire  he  lived  in  the  Minster  Yard,  York. 

2 See  William  Knowler,  ed.,  The  Earl  of  Strafforde’s  Letters  and  Dis- 
patches (London,  1739),  I,  11.  This  citation  is  to  a letter  written  by  Went- 
worth to  Ingram  about  the  coming  election  in  which  he  and  Sir  J ohn  Savile  were 
contending  for  a seat  in  Parliament  ( 1 620) , This  might  suggest  that  there  was 
little  friendship  between  the  lord  of  the  rectory  manor  and  the  strongest 
single  family  in  the  parish,  since  Sir  John  Savile  and  Wentworth  were  scarcely 
friendly  at  this  point  and  Wentworth's  letter  reveals  this  antagonism. 

3 PRO,  C,  PR  1797/Pt.  9/ii.  Ingram  was  to  pay  33s.  5d.  as  a yearly 
rent  to  the  king.  Robert  Waterhouse  had  reached  the  peak  in  the  family's 
fortune.  He  died  in  1598,  leaving  the  estate  to  his  son  Edward,  whose 
guardian  for  a time  was  David  Waterhouse,  Robert’s  brother.  In  the  course 
of  a few  years  Edward  sold  the  manor  to  Ingram.  At  the  time  of  the  sale 
Edward  kept  a lease  of  some  lands  which  his  father  had  given  him  several 
years  before  his  death.  It  was  agreed  that,  if  Ingram  decided  not  to  make 
use  of  certain  moors  and  wastes  after  a year,  he  would  return  them  to 
David  and  Edward,  and  £1000  of  the  purchase  price  would  be  deducted. 
David  soon  went  to  prison  on  charges  of  debt  and  Edward  retired  to  Surrey, 
a bankrupt.  It  would  seem  that  Ingram  paid  neither  the  rents  for  the 
leased  lands  nor  relinquished  the  wastelands  which  he  was  not  using.  Ingram, 
who  had  a reputation  for  not  paying  all  the  purchase  price,  seems  to  have 
tried  to  deny  these  agreements  in  a court  action  which  took  place  in  the 
1630s.  See  T.  W.  Hanson,  A Short  History  of  Shibden  Hall  (Halifax,  1934), 
12.  See  also  PRO,  CP  3/418/71;  CD  21/W16/17.  David  Waterhouse  seems 
to  have  been  as  crafty  as  Ingram  in  his  business  dealings  and  may  well 
have  been  a contributing  factor  in  the  ruin  of  this  branch  of  the  Waterhouse 
family.  See  John  Lister,  “The  History  of  Shibden  Hall:  The  Waterhouse 
Family,”  THAS  (1917),  64ff. 

4 Among  the  Temple  Newsam  Manuscripts  in  the  Leeds  Public  Library 
is  a rental  (TN/HX/B4/4)  in  which  the  value  of  the  manor  was  noted  in 
some  detail.  It  is  unfortunately  undated,  but  it  may  have  been  made  out 
at  the  time  of  the  sale  to  Ingram.  The  following  list  was  given:  the  manor 
house  with  demesne  and  tenements  in  Halifax,  £70  10s  4d;  seven  corn  mills, 
£250;  three  fulling  mills,  £23;  cloth  halls  in  Halifax,  £30;  land  in  Heptonstall, 
£26;  cloth  halls  in  Heptonstall,  £3;  freehold  rents  out  of  the  parish,  £3; 
land  forfeited  to  the  lord  each  year,  c.£80;  copyhold  rent  from  5338  acres, 
£85  10s;  and  fines,  £800.  The  total  income  of  the  manor  in  a year  was 
given  as  £1370  and  the  total  sale  value  was  placed  at  £13,057  15s. 


stall  to  Charles  Greenwood,  the  Rector  of  the  Church  at  Thornhill, 
for  £500,  but  he  kept  Halifax  for  himself.1 

The  lords  of  the  sub-manors  including  Halifax-Heptonstall 
appear  to  have  had  stewards  just  like  the  lords  of  the  Honour 
and  the  Manor,  but  they  were,  of  course,  not  as  illustrious  as  the 
stewards  of  the  Manor  or  the  Honour.  Both  the  Waterhouse 
family  and  Ingram  had  stewards  or  agents  in  their  employ  for  the 
rectory  manor,  but  they  appear  to  have  kept  them  much  more 
under  their  supervision  when  they  held  court  and  attended  to 
their  other  responsibilities  than  appears  to  have  been  the  case  of 
the  stewards  of  the  larger  units.  Not  only  did  the  rectory  steward 
have  duties  in  the  manor  of  Halifax,  but  he  also  was  sent  to 
other  parts  of  the  lord’s  landholdings  in  Yorkshire  and,  in  general, 
was  to  keep  the  estates  and  their  inhabitants  in  line  with  the 
lord’s  wishes.2 

Besides  the  sub-manors,  there  is  one  other  type  of  admini- 
trative  unit  in  the  Manor  of  Wakefield  worth  mentioning,  the 
graveship.  There  were  twelve  graveships  in  the  Manor  in  all,  but 
only  those  of  Sowerby,  Hipperholme,  and  Rastrick  (including 
seven  townships)  were  within  the  parish  of  Halifax.  Over  these 
areas  graves  were  elected  each  year  from  those  eligible  to  hold 
the  office  because  of  a certain  kind  of  tenure.  The  graves  collected 
freehold  and  copyhold  rents,  sometimes  referred  to  as  the  Earl’s 
rents,  which  were  owed  to  the  lord  of  the  Manor  at  Michaelmas, 
and  in  the  Middle  Ages  they  served  as  constables  with  responsi- 
bilities to  oversee  the  general  raising  of  the  crops.  The  reason 
why  some  fifteen  sub-manors,  or  “inferior  manors”  as  they  were 
called  in  the  Wakefield  Manor  Book  of  1709,  were  not  included 
in  these  graveships  is  difficult  to  understand.  The  answer  may 
lie  in  the  amount  of  rents  to  be  collected  and  the  way  in  which 
these  sub-manors  were  held.  Sowerby  and  Hipperholme  appear 
to  have  been  personally  held  by  the  lord  of  the  Wakefield  Manor 
throughout,  while  the  others  were  granted  to  sub-lords  who  held 
their  own  courts  baron.  It  was  in  these  graveships  that  the 
oxgang  land  (the  originally  cultivated  land  in  the  open  fields 
at  the  time  the  Wakefield  Manor  was  first  bestowed  on  the  Earl 
of  Warenne)3  was  situated  and  the  duty  to  contribute  to  the 
upkeep  of  the  Wakefield  Mill  Dam  was  owed.  The  bailiff  in 

1 RA  MSS.,  Parcel  No.  7,  Serial  No.  1/7/5;  and  Parcel  No.  30,  Serial 
No.  49. 

2 See  the  steward’s  accounts  made  by  John  Matteson  while  he  was  in 
the  employ  of  David  Waterhouse  during  the  first  ten  years  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  and  also  Matteson’s  accounts  when  he  worked  for  Sir  Arthur 
Ingram  later.  These  can  be  found  in  LP  Lib.,  TN/EA/13/1-3,  5,  6. 

3 There  were  nineteen  and  three-fourth  oxgangs  in  Hipperholme  and 
nine  in  Rastrick.  See  YAS  Lib.,  Kendall  MSS.,  MS  626,  fol.  99;  WMCR 
1570;  and  PRO,  DL,  SC  44/355,  for  references  to  oxgangs.  In  the  last 
document  the  amount  of  4s.  Id.  was  given  as  the  yearly  rent  for  one  oxgang 
of  land  which  amounted  to  approximately  fourteen  acres. 



Halifax,  an  official  of  the  Wakefield  Manor,  may  have  supervised 
the  collection  of  the  Earl’s  rents  in  the  other  sub-manors.  In 
fact,  graves  were  annually  announced  in  the  court  of  the  Halifax 
rectory  manor  and  graves  may  have  been  appointed  in  some  of 
the  other  sub-manor  courts  without  the  official  designation  of 
the  term  graveship. 1 

The  inhabitants  of  these  sub-manors  and  graveships  con- 
sisted of  copyholders,  leaseholders,  and  freeholders.  The  villein 
had  long  since  commuted  most  of  his  services  into  a money  rent 
and  commonly  had  become  a customary  tenant  or  copyholder, 
who  could  defend  his  right  to  his  land  in  the  king’s  court  if  his 
manorial  court  failed  to  give  him  justice.2  In  the  literal  sense, 
only  those  who  held  oxgang  land  and  original  royd  (cleared  of 
trees)  land  were  copyholders  since  the  tenants  of  more  recently 
cultivated  land  were  holding  their  land  ad  voluntatem,  i.e.  on  an 
indefinite  lease  by  the  will  of  the  lord.  In  the  records  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  original  copyhold  land  and  the  more  recently 
cleared  land  which  was  called  land  held  ad  voluntatem  was  not 
always  made  and  in  many  cases  only  those  who  had  very  recently 
enclosed  land  from  the  wastes  were  designated  as  tenants  ad 
voluntatem.  With  the  difference  so  slight  between  these  two 
groups,  it  seems  safe  to  call  them  all  copyholders. 

Although  the  tenants  were  now  copyholders  and  not  medieval 
villeins,  some  of  the  old  obligations  to  the  lord  of  the  manor 
remained:  suit  to  the  lord’s  court  and  mills  (both  fulling  and 
corn),  the  requirement  to  register  with  the  lord’s  court  any  change 
in  the  holding  of  the  land,  the  duty  of  paying  rent  to  the  lord 
each  year  for  the  land,  and  the  obligation  to  pay  a fine  called  a 
heriot  when  receiving  land  which  was  changing  hands  either 
because  of  death  or  because  of  a transfer  of  land  from  one  person 
to  another.3 

By  the  seventeenth  century  some  of  the  copyholders  in  the 
parish  of  Halifax  were  becoming  dissatisfied  with  the  manner  in 
which  the  fines  for  land  transfer  were  being  collected.  In  the 
Wakefield  Manor,  as  well  as  in  the  Honour  of  Pontefract,  these 

1 See  John  Charlesworth,  ed.,  Wakefield,  Manor  Book,  1709,  YAS  Rec. 
Ser.,  Cl  (1939),  5,  50-51,  53;  Crabtree,  382;  J.  W.  Walker,  Wakefield,  79, 
357;  Waters,  Wakefield,  10;  and  the  court  rolls  for  Halifax  in  the  Temple 
Newsam  collection  in  Leeds.  A woman  could  be  appointed  to  serve  as  a 
grave,  but  she  usually  appointed  a deputy  to  carry  out  her  duties.  Sowerby 
graveship  included  Soyland  and  Warley,  and  Hipperholme  graveship  appears 
to  have  included  Brighouse  and  Northowram. 

2 Tawney,  96. 

3 Sometimes  a day’s  work  was  still  required  on  the  roads  of  some 
parts  of  the  parish,  but  this  duty  could  be  fulfilled  by  paying  twelve  pennies. 
See  YAS  Lib.,  WMCR  1629.  It  was  to  this  service  that  a witness  in  a corn 
mill  case  referred  when  he  mentioned  that  in  Sowerby  he  still  paid  twelve 
pennies  as  composition  money  for  every  day’s  work  he  owed.  PRO,  DL, 
D 4/69/49  (17  James  I).  In  Barkisland  six  days’  work  was  still  expected 
from  every  man,  and  an  overseer  was  appointed  to  see  that  the  work  was 
done.  The  same  was  true  of  the  Rastrick  inhabitants.  See  YAS  Lib., 
WMCR  1613. 



fines,  unfixed  by  custom,  were  left  to  the  will  of  the  lord.  They 
may  have  been  increasing  in  amount  through  the  years,  but  it  is 
impossible  to  tell  definitely  from  the  material  given  in  the  court 
rolls.  A royal  commission  was  appointed  to  investigate  the  request 
for  fixed  fines  about  1606. 1 A document  entitled  the  Breviate  of 
Sowerby,  probably  drawn  up  by  a lawyer  in  the  employ  of  the 
graveship  to  provide  the  royal  commission  with  information, 
argued  that,  according  to  a manorial  survey,  the  fines  had  already 
been  fixed  in  the  reign  of  Edward  II.  Much  to  the  harm  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Sowerby  this  agreement  had  been  allowed  to  lapse. 
Sowerby  should  have  had  better  treatment  than  this,  stated  the 
Breviate,  for,  in  spite  of  its  poverty,  " . . . by  the  paynefull 
laboure  and  industrie  of  the  inhabitants  itt  [the  graveship]  hath 
beene  improved  from  xxx  li.  by  yeare  to  lx  li.  by  yeare  . . .”2 
The  inhabitants  of  Hipperholme  graveship  were  also  employing 
a lawyer,  John  Midgley,  who  was  a native  of  the  parish,  to  search 
the  records  in  London  on  their  behalf.3  These  two  attempts  to 
establish  definite  rights  reveal  that  at  least  some  of  the  inhabitants 
felt  a modification  of  the  old  manorial  ambiguity  would  be  to 
their  advantage. 

The  king,  always  interested  in  increasing  his  revenue, 
favoured  the  idea,  and  the  Privy  Council  issued  an  order  on 
November  18,  1608.  It  set  the  price  for  the  fixing  of  fines  at  a 
composition  of  thirty-five  years  rent,  which  was  to  be  paid  in 
two  instalments  by  each  person  agreeing  to  the  arrangement. 
No  one  was  forced  to  agree  to  this  expensive  composition,  but  by 
a decree  issued  in  December,  1608,  no  one  was  to  have  the  benefit 
of  the  initial  decree  unless  he  paid  the  composition  by  February 
2nd  of  the  following  year.4  Of  the  inhabitants  in  the  parish  of 

1 See  YAS  Lib.,  WMCR  1606.  Included  in  this  roll  is  a note  indicating 
that  a survey  of  the  entire  Manor  of  Wakefield  was  to  be  made  since  none 
existed  which  was  up  to  date.  This  was  probably  in  connection  with  the 
investigation  by  the  commission  appointed  by  James  I to  review  the  request 
for  fixing  fines.  See  PRO,  SPD,  v.  37,  nos.  106-107.  The  Honour  was  also 
surveyed  at  this  time  and  it  was  found  that  rents  there  were  higher  on  the 
average  than  in  the  Manor  and  that  the  inhabitants  were  not  as  affluent 
as  in  the  Manor.  See  also  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  of  the 
Reign  of  James  I,  1611-1618,  IX  (London,  1858),  69.  On  August  16,  1611, 
Sir  Henry  Savile  and  two  others  were  certified  to  proceed  in  persuading  the 
copyhold  tenants  of  Pontefract  to  compound  for  their  uncertain  fines. 

2 LP  Lib.,  TN/HX/E,  fol.  6.  This  rise  in  rent  value  may  have  been 
caused  by  an  increase  in  the  number  of  enclosures  from  the  waste  lands. 

3 The  statement  of  Midgley’s  fees  for  searching  in  places  like  the  Tower 
is  still  preserved  in  the  Shibden  Hall  collection  of  manuscripts.  Lister 
MSS.,  1608.  He  had  received  from  several  men  the  sum  of  £18  17s  2d  and 
he  had  spent  £6  6s  3d,  according  to  his  accounts. 

4 See  PRO,  as  quoted  in  DL,  D and  O 5/26/fol.  7b-12b,  13;  and  5/25/ 
fol.  46-47.  This  order  stated  that  an  act  of  parliament  was  to  be  passed 
to  make  the  agreement  permanent.  Three  years  rent,  instead  of  one  and  one- 
half  years  as  many  had  claimed  was  the  custom,  was  to  be  paid  as  heriot 
for  messuages  with  lands,  cottages  with  lands,  mills  and  all  other  types  of 
land.  For  a messuage  without  lands  eight  pennies  were  to  be  paid  and  for  a 
cottage  without  lands  only  four  pennies  were  required.  Also,  twenty  pennies 
per  pound  were  to  be  paid  when  land  was  surrendered  to  another  person. 



Halifax,  only  those  who  resided  in  the  graveships  of  Sowerby 
(including  Warley  and  Soyland),  Hipperholme,  and  Rastrick 
appear  to  have  been  given  the  opportunity  to  compound.  In  all, 
four  hundred  and  eight  signed  from  the  parish:  two  hundred  and 
seventy-four  were  from  Sowerby;  one  hundred  and  nineteen  from 
Hipperholme;  and  fifteen  from  Rastrick.  These  figures  probably 
represented  nearly  all  the  copyholders  in  those  three  graveships.1 

The  total  number  of  copyholders  in  the  parish  is  difficult  to 
estimate.  Professor  Tawney  has  calculated  that  copyholders 
constituted  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  landholding  population  in  the 
whole  country.2  It  is  possible  that  in  Halifax  parish  at  the 
beginning  of  Elizabeth’s  reign  the  copyholders  made  up  at  least 
two-thirds  of  the  population  if  not  more,  but  by  the  Civil  War 
this  number  may  have  dropped  because  of  enfranchisement.3 

The  appearance  of  the  leaseholder,  like  the  commutation  of 
services  of  a copyholder,  was  a sign  of  the  breakdown  or  at  least 
the  modification  of  manorialism,  for  leaseholders  began  to  appear 
in  large  numbers  only  when  the  lord  began  to  lease  demesne  land. 
The  leasing  of  the  demesne  can  be  seen  in  the  deeds  and  wills 
which  concern  capital  messuages,  for  this  term  very  often  meant 
the  manor  house  and  part  of  the  demesne  land.  A lease  holder, 
judging  from  the  wills,  was  quite  likely  to  be  a copyholder  or  a 
freeholder.  Although  it  is  impossible  to  estimate  the  number  of 
leaseholders  in  the  parish  of  Halifax,  one  contemporary  statistic 
is  worth  citing.  In  a rental  for  the  manor  of  Halifax,  probably 
either  from  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century  or  from  the  early 
seventeenth  century,  the  number  of  leaseholders  was  given  as 
seven  hundred  in  comparison  with  the  three  hundred  copyholders, 
who  were  their  landlords.4  The  leaseholder  usually  undertook  the 
responsibilities  associated  with  his  tenement  and  lands,  such  as 
suit  to  mill  and  court  unless  his  lease  stated  otherwise.  During 
the  period  of  this  study,  the  length  of  the  leases  in  Halifax  parish 
ranged  from  a few  years  to  two  hundred  or  more  years.  If  the 
leases  filed  with  the  Halifax-Heptonstall  manor  court  are  any 
indication,  the  average  length  appears  to  have  been  twenty-one 

1 The  king  was  to  receive  a total  of  £5924  17s  6£d  from  all  the  in- 
habitants of  the  Manor  who  had  accepted  the  agreement.  See  PRO,  E,  D 
and  O 126,  Ser.  IV,  v.  1,  fol.  152-161;  and  SPD,  v.  44,  no.  8.  From  a Hipper- 
holme rental,  where  the  composition  money  was  included,  it  is  possible  to 
see  the  amounts  which  individuals  were  willing  to  pay  for  fixing  of  their 
fines.  Thirty-seven  of  the  copyholders  were  willing  to  pay  between  £6  and 
£21  for  this  privilege,  and  eighty-five  paid  less.  This  same  rental  indicates 
that  practically  all  had  paid  their  composition.  LP  Lib.,  Priestley  MSS.,  C 34. 

2 Tawney,  24. 

3 This  statement  is  made  after  extensive  work  with  surveys  and 
rentals  still  available  and  is  only  a rough  estimate.  See  below  the  discussion 
of  enfranchisement. 

4 LP  Lib.,  TN/HX/B4/4.  The  amount  of  rent  “betwext  tenant  and 
tenant”  per  annum  was  given  as  £4000.  This  seems  high  for  the  rents  of 
seven  hundred  leaseholders  in  a year,  even  though  town  rents  might  well 
have  been  very  high. 


In  the  Middle  Ages,  as  well  as  in  the  early  modern  period, 
the  freeholder  had  more  freedom  to  bequeath  his  land  as  he 
wished  than  the  copyholder,  but  he,  like  the  copyholder,  was  in 
many  cases  expected  to  attend  the  lord's  court  and  his  mills  as 
well  as  to  pay  a small  rent  each  year.1  In  spite  of  enfranchisement 
in  individual  cases  during  the  medieval  period,  the  number  of 
freeholders  continued  to  remain  small  in  England  well  into  the 
early  modern  period.  Professor  Tawney  has  suggested  that  one- 
fifth  of  the  population  of  sixteenth  century  England  consisted  of 
freeholders.2  This  figure  may  not  be  high  enough  for  the  parish 
of  Halifax  by  the  time  of  the  Civil  War,  but  it  is  impossible  to 
estimate  the  number,  since  rentals  do  not  exist  for  every  township 
and  the  number  of  freeholders  was  far  from  constant  during  the 
period  1558  to  1640.  The  fact  that  some  freeholders  were  also 
copyholders  adds  still  further  difficulties  to  any  statistical  evalua- 
tion. However,  one  interesting  survey  is  still  extant  from  the 
reign  of  Henry  VIII  in  which  an  attempt  was  made  to  estimate 
the  number  of  free  rents.3  Ten  of  Halifax’s  twenty-five  townships 
were  represented  as  follows:  Stainland  and  Ovenden  each  with 
sixteen  names,  Wadsworth  with  eleven  names,  Rishworth  and 
Norland  with  nine  names,  Skircoat  and  Shelf  with  ten  names, 
Barkisland  with  twenty-two  names,  Stansfield  with  four  names, 
and  Langfield  with  thirteen  names.  These  figures  total  one 
hundred  and  one  freeholders.  Among  the  Shibden  Hall  manuscripts 
several  copies  of  rolls  of  the  manorial  courts  held  by  the  Saviles 
provide  later  figures  for  two  of  these  townships.  In  the  Shelf 
manorial  roll  for  1587  forty-one  freeholders  were  presented, 
while  in  1615  some  ninety-four  freeholders  have  been  noted  for 

The  number  of  freeholders  definitely  increased  during  the 
period  of  this  study,  for  a movement  toward  enfranchisement  was 
under  way.  Enfranchisement  usually  meant  that  the  copyholder 
was  made  a freeholder  and  his  land  was  made  freehold  land.  To 
possess  enfranchised  land  meant  that  the  owner  could  bequeath 
it  to  his  heir  without  question.  The  copyhold  formula  was  ‘To 
hold  at  the  will  of  the  lord  according  to  the  custom  of  the  manor”. 
In  spite  of  his  “copy”,  the  copyholder  still  remained  to  some 
extent  at  the  mercy  of  the  lord,  but  the  freeholder’s  legal  position 

1 In  a transcription  of  the  Ovenden  court  rolls  (SH,  WCR/25)  for  1615 
twelve  freeholders  were  excused  from  their  suit  to  the  mill  because  they  held 
land  formerly  held  by  the  Order  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem. 

2 Tawney,  24. 

3 PRO,  Special  Commission  11/760. 

4 See  SH,  WCR/25,  27.  In  the  case  of  Shelf  the  proportion  of  free- 
holders to  the  non-freeholders  was  forty-one  to  six.  No  type  of  tenure 
except  freehold  tenure  was  mentioned  in  the  Ovenden  roll.  From  the  Manor 
Book  of  1709  for  the  Wakefield  Manor  later  statistics  can  be  gained:  there 
was  a total  of  five  hundred  and  seventy-six  names  from  the  whole  parish 
of  Halifax  and  of  these  two  hundred  and  thirty-eight  came  from  the  town- 
ships which  appeared  in  the  Henry  VIII  list.  Charlesworth,  ed.,  10-14. 



was  unassailable.1  Besides  the  legal  advantage,  the  freeholder’s 
social  status  was  much  higher  in  the  community  than  that  of  the 
copyholder’s.  There  was  a move  by  some  Sowerby  inhabitants  to 
secure  enfranchisement  in  1607  at  the  same  time  that  the  fixing  of 
fines  was  under  royal  consideration.  The  Breviate  of  Sowerby,  a 
recitation  of  the  reasons  why  the  inhabitants  of  Sowerby  should 
be  given  special  favours,  took  the  stand  that  the  lord  of  the 
Wakefield  Manor  should  not  only  fix  fines  but  also  restore  free 
status.2  The  investigation  by  the  royal  commission  revealed  that 
the  better  sort  of  tenant  wanted  freedom  and  was  willing  to  pay 
“four-score  yeare  fyne”  for  it.  The  report  stated  that  the  in- 
habitants were  generally  prosperous  and  that  the  granting  of 
their  wishes  would  mean  increased  profit  to  the  crown.3  James  I 
was  probably  more  attracted  by  the  monetary  gain  than  by  the 
legality  of  the  claim,  but  in  any  case  he  made  agreements  in 
April,  1607,  with  seven  men  from  Sowerby  and  seven  from  Hipper- 
holme  who  agreed  to  pay  a total  of  £545  for  their  enfranchisement. 
The  largest  single  payment  amounted  to  £80.4 

Perhaps  the  most  sweeping  enfranchisement  took  place  in 
the  rectory  manor  of  Halifax-Heptonstall.  A draft  of  a petition 
to  Sir  Arthur  Ingram  preserved  in  the  Yorkshire  Archaeological 
Society  Library  reveals  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  manor  re- 
quested enfranchisement  and  the  fixing  of  fines  in  much  the 
same  way  as  the  inhabitants  of  Sowerby  had  petitioned  the 
crown.  A commission,  sent  to  investigate  the  situation,  decided 
upon  the  following  conditions  for  enfranchisement:  five  years 
rent  was  to  be  paid  if  the  land  had  been  recently  enclosed  and 
only  four  years  rent  if  it  was  ancient  copyhold.  All  those  who 
wanted  to  remain  copyholders  were  to  pay  one  and  one-half 
years  rent  for  the  fixing  of  fines.  However,  whether  the  land 
remained  copyhold  or  not,  suit  to  the  manor  court  and  the  water 
corn  and  fulling  mills  on  Halifax  Brook  had  to  be  maintained.5 
The  rent  values  were  to  be  assessed  by  a special  commission  and 
the  enfranchisement  was  to  be  made  legal  by  the  surrender  of  the 
copyhold  and  by  the  writing  of  a new  deed  which  included  these 

In  the  Temple  Newsam  collection  there  is  a group  of 
eighty-five  enfranchisement  deeds  dating  from  1609  to  1641.  By 
these  deeds  some  ninety  copyholders  of  the  manor  of  Halifax 
received  their  freedom.  Although  the  original  petition  to  Ingram 
appears  to  have  come  from  the  inhabitants  not  only  of  Halifax 
but  also  of  Heptonstall,  only  three  or  four  of  the  deeds  were 

1 Tawney,  34;  and  Sir  Frederick  Pollock  and  Frederic  William  Maitland, 
The  History  of  English  Law  (Cambridge,  England,  1911),  I,  357,  403,  427. 

2 LP  Lib.,  TN/HX/E,  fol.  3. 

3 PRO,  SPD,  v.  37,  nos.  106-107. 

4 Ibid.,  DL,  R and  S 43/11/23. 

5 YAS  Lib.,  Foster-Greenwood  MSS.,  DD  99/FI. 


concerned  with  land  in  the  latter  township.1  The  greatest  amount 
of  enfranchising  appears  to  have  been  done  in  August,  1609, 
when  forty-three  of  these  deeds  were  written.2  A few  people  paid 
in  shillings  for  their  deeds,  but  the  majority  paid  considerations 
ranging  from  £5  to  £100,  and  a few  paid  as  much  as  £200.  There 
is  evidence  that  Ingram  may  have  demanded  higher  sums  for 
enfranchisement  than  some  of  the  inhabitants  wanted  to  pay. 
According  to  the  testimony  given  in  a suit  in  the  court  of  Chancery 
in  1610,  Sir  Arthur  Ingram  had  refused  the  plaintiff's  offer  of  a 
reasonable  sum  and  had  demanded  a much  higher  amount  on  the 
grounds  that  the  plaintiff  held  his  land  illegally  since  it  had  been 
enclosed  from  the  moors.3  Although  Sir  Arthur  admitted  that  six 
years  rent  was  being  charged  in  some  cases  instead  of  the  five 
years  rent  which  had  been  initially  agreed  upon,  he  stated  that 
no  one  had  objected  to  this  arrangement  until  the  plaintiff, 
Richard  Lawe,  complained.  There  is  evidence  of  further  trouble 
in  a letter  written  to  Ingram  by  one  of  his  agents  in  1636.  The 
agent  wrote  that  two  of  the  copyholders  wanted  enfranchisement, 
but  that  they  would  not  pay  the  amount  of  money  he  was  asking 
since  they  felt  it  was  too  high.4  However,  the  fixing  of  fines 
and  enfranchisement  was,  no  doubt,  greatly  appreciated  by  the 
copyhold  tenants  despite  certain  difficulties,  for  it  added  to 
their  privileges. 

1 It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that  on  November  10, 
1657,  some  arrangements  appear  to  have  been  made  for  enfranchisement  and 
fixing  fines  in  the  Heptonstall  manor  by  Sir  George  Savile,  who  was  then 
the  lord  of  the  manor.  RA  MSS.,  Parcel  No.  7,  Serial  No.  1/7/6.  There  is 
no  mention  in  this  draft  for  the  enfranchisement  and  fixing  of  fines  of  any 
previous  arrangement  which  had  been  made  for  the  inhabitants  of  Hepton- 
stall. Perhaps  few  availed  themselves  of  Ingram's  offer  or  perhaps  he  did 
not  press  it  upon  the  township  of  Heptonstall. 

2 This  set  of  deeds  in  Leeds  appears  to  be  incomplete,  for  one  more 
enfranchisement  deed,  dating  from  1622,  was  discovered  in  the  Cartwright 
Memorial  Hall  in  Bradford.  Horton  MSS.,  Series  B/92.  Furthermore, 
there  is  another  document  in  the  Temple  Newsam  collection  itself  which 
seems  to  indicate  many  more  enfranchisements.  LP  Lib.,  TN/HX/B4/3. 
This  document  was  probably  drawn  up  from  bundles  of  deeds,  since  the  names 
listed  on  it  are  grouped  under  the  headings  of  three  bundles.  Although  it 
was  undated  its  title,  “A  perticuler  of  the  rents  and  Alienation  fines  reserved 
in  the  Enfranchisements,"  reveals  that  in  all  probability  it  was  drawn  up 
sometime  during  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.  One  hundred 
and  seventy-one  names  appear  on  this  list  not  including  the  last  entry, 
‘‘Barraclough  Almeshouses,"  It  is  possible  that  this  document  was  drawn 
up  in  expectation  of  the  enfranchisement,  but  it  is  equally  possible  that 
this  represents  the  number  of  enfranchisements  by  the  time  of  the  Civil 
War.  It  is  possible  that  a large  majority  of  the  copyholders  had  been 
enfranchised  by  the  time  of  the  Civil  War,  at  least  in  Halifax  township. 

3 As  cited  by  Lister,  “History  of  Shibden  Hall,”  THAS  (1917),  74. 
Ingram  may  have  been  arguing  on  the  grounds  that  enclosed  land  from 
the  moors  could  not  have  been  customary  land,  and  that  the  plaintiff's 
land  was  held  ad  voluntatem  and  not  by  copy  with  the  result  that  Ingram 
could  have  asked  more  money. 

* LP  Lib.,  TN/HX/D/8. 



By  A.  S.  Harvey. 

The  Parish  Church  of  St.  Mary  the  Virgin  at  Cottingham 
in  the  East  Riding  had  formerly  an  extensive  collection  of  14th 
century  heraldic  shields,  remarkable  for  their  association  with 
King  Edward  III  and  his  family,  and  with  a number  of  the  great 
lords  of  his  reign. 

Dodsworth,1  the  antiquary,  visited  Cottingham  Church  in 
1620,  and  De  la  Pryme,2  the  Hull  diarist,  in  1700.  In  the  chancel 
Dodsworth  noticed  three  royal  shields  in  the  east  window  and 
Pryme  seven,  described  by  him  as  “great  shields’'.  In  the  24 
lights  of  the  eight  side  windows,  Dodsworth  recorded  18  14th 
century  shields,  none  of  which  was  found  there  by  Pryme,  who 
described  two  15th  century  shields  not  noticed  by  Dodsworth.3 
In  addition,  Pryme  found  16  shields  carved  in  wood  under  the 
choir  stalls,  and  a further  series  of  eight  shields,  temp.  Henry  VII, 
painted  in  the  chancel  roof.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the 
whole  collection  originally  numbered  no  fewer  than  74  shields, 
none  of  which  however  now  survives.4 

Having  regard  to  the  royal  shields  in  the  east  window,  the 
14th  century  arms  in  the  side  windows  of  the  chancel  have  been 
described  as  “those  of  the  great  barons  of  Edward  Ill’s  reign”.5 
Of  this  latter  series,  Dodsworth  names  the  families  represented 
by  the  arms,  without  attributing  them  to  particular  individuals. 
No  precise  date  has  been  ascribed  to  the  armorial  glass  itself,  nor 
to  the  arms  on  the  stalls  described  by  Pryme. 

The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  consider  the  arms  in  relation 
to  the  complete  rebuilding  of  the  Parish  Church  in  the  14th  century, 
and  to  the  great  lords  of  Cottingham  during  that  period,  and  in 
the  15th  and  the  early  16th  century. 

It  is  safe  to  assume  that  the  chancel  windows  at  Cottingham, 
and  perhaps  the  chancel  itself,  were  designed  to  commemorate 

1 Roger  Dodsworth’s  Yorkshire  Church  Notes,  Edited  by  J.  W.  Clay, 
1904.  (Yorks.  Arch.  Soc.,  Rec.  Series,  Vol.  34,  p.  200). 

2 Abraham  de  la  Pryme — Diary.  (Surtees  Society,  Vol.  54,  p.  231). 

3 It  would  seem  that  Dodsworth  failed  to  record  the  four  Tudor 
royal  shields  and  the  two  15th  century  shields,  later  seen  by  Pryme,  owing 
to  difficulties  of  identification  (see  pp.  273-292).  For  a similar  reason  he 
may  have  excluded  further  shields  possibly  then  in  the  side  windows  (see 
p.  269).  The  heraldic  glass  was  perhaps  removed  when  the  chancel  under- 
went “a  thorough  repair”  prior  to  1797.  Gentleman’s  Magazine,  LXVII, 
II,  1001. 

4 Glover’s  Visitations  of  Yorkshire,  1584-5.  (J.  Foster,  1875)  makes 

no  mention  of  Cottingham  Church. 

5 Yorks.  Arch.  Journal,  XXVI,  110, 


the  personages  represented  by  the  heraldic  shields  in  the  windows. 
The  seven  lights  in  the  east  window  held  the  royal  shields  of 
Edward  III  and  his  family.  The  remaining  18  shields  of  which 
we  have  a clear  record  relate  to  military  commanders  and  others 
associated  with  the  Black  Prince. 

The  chancel  window  shields  in  general  belong  to  the  last 
years  of  the  Black  Prince’s  life,  1372-1376.  In  the  east  window  the 
shield  of  John  of  Gaunt  (p.  274,  No.  5)  would  not  be  earlier  than 
1372  when  Gaunt  became  King  of  Castile  and  Leon.  In  the  side 
windows  the  shield  of  Dreux  (p.  276,  No.  3)  also  would  be  no 
earlier  than  1372  when  he  became  Earl  of  Richmond.  Neville’s 
shield  (No.  14),  where  he  is  referred  to  as  “echevesque”,  cannot 
be  earlier  than  1374,  when  Alexander  Neville  became  Archbishop 
of  York.  On  the  other  hand,  the  references  to  Mowbray  and 
Percy,  described  as  “dominus”  and  “sieur”  respectively,  would 
not  be  later  than  1377,  when  these  lords  were  made  earls  and 
would  thereafter  be  described,  as  in  the  case  of  FitzAlan,  Monta- 
cute  and  others,  as  “conte”. 

The  Cottingham  Lordship 

The  lordship  of  Cottingham  was  granted  to  the  Norman- 
French  family  of  Stuteville  (or  Estouteville)  before  the  year  1106, 
and  held  by  them  together  with  the  honour  of  Liddell  in  Cumber- 
land (from  c.  1174)1  till  the  death  of  Joan  de  Stuteville  in  1272. 
Daughter  and  heiress  of  Nicholas  de  Stuteville,  Joan  had  married 
Hugh  Wake,  Lord  of  Bourne  and  Deeping,  in  Lincolnshire.  Their 
son  and  heir,  Baldwin  Wake,  thus  inherited  Cottingham  lordship 
and  the  other  extensive  estates  of  the  two  families. 

Baldwin  Wake  was  succeeded  by  his  son  John,  1st  Lord 
Wake  of  Cottingham,  who  died  in  1300,  leaving  a son  Thomas, 
2nd  Lord  Wake,  then  two  years  of  age,  and  a daughter  Margaret. 
Through  Thomas,  Lord  Wake  and  his  sister,  the  Wakes  of  Cotting- 
ham were  linked  by  marriage  with  the  royal  Plantagenets.  Before 
1317,  Thomas  had  married  Blanche,  daughter  of  Henry  Planta- 
genet,  Earl  of  Lancaster.  It  was  at  the  request  of  Lancaster  that 
Thomas,  although  still  a minor,  had  livery  of  his  lands  from  the 
Crown  in  1317.  Margaret  his  sister  married  in  1325  Edmund 
Plantagenet,  Earl  of  Kent,2  son  of  Edward  I and  Queen  Margaret.3 

Lord  Wake  is  referred  to  in  grants  made  by  Edward  II  as 
‘The  King’s  kinsman”.  In  the  early  years  of  Edward  Ill’s  reign 
he  served  on  the  Council  of  Regency.  Wake  died  in  May  1349, 
and  was  succeeded  by  his  sister  Margaret,  Lady  Wake,  Countess 
of  Kent,  who  died  the  following  September.  Her  son  and  heir, 

1 ed.  C.  T.  Clay,  Stuteville  Fee,  (Yorks.  Arch.  Soc.  Rec.  Series,  Extra 
Series,  Vol.  VII,  1952),  p.  1,  13. 

2 The  Earls  of  Lancaster  and  Kent  were  present  at  Cottingham  as 
witnesses  to  Lord  Wake’s  Foundation  Charter  of  Haltemprice  Priory  in  1326. 

3 J.  W.  Clay,  Extinct  and  Dormant  Peerages  of  the  Northern  Counties 
of  England,  229. 



John  Plantagenet,  Earl  of  Kent,  held  the  estates  of  Wake  and 
Kent  for  three  years  and  was  followed  by  his  sister,  Joan,  “the 
Fair  Maid  of  Kent,”  Countess  of  Kent,  in  her  own  right. 

Joan  Plantagenet  made  two  early  contracts  of  marriage  (1) 
with  Sir  Thomas  de  Holand  K.G.  and  (2)  with  Sir  William  Monta- 
cute  K.G.,  Earl  of  Salisbury.  The  latter  contract  was  annulled 
by  papal  bull,  and  the  earlier  contract  with  Holand  re-established 
in  October  1349.  Holand  died  in  December  1360  and  Joan  married 
her  cousin,  Edward  the  Black  Prince  on  10  October  1361. 1 

Holand  held  Cottingham  and  the  Earldom  of  Kent  as  of 
the  inheritance  of  his  wife,  from  1352  to  1360;  for  the  greater 
part  of  this  time  he  was  on  active  service  in  France  where  he 
died  in  1360. 

Cottingham  was  in  the  Black  Prince’s  hands  from  his 
marriage  in  1361  until  his  death  in  1376,  his  steward  at  Cottingham 
having  charge  of  all  the  Prince’s  lands  in  Yorkshire.  During  the 
period  1361-65  the  Prince’s  orders  relating  to  Cottingham,  made 
by  advice  of  his  council  are  recorded  in  his  Register.2 

The  Prince’s  personal  interest  in  the  lordship  is  suggested 
by  certain  orders  made  before  his  departure  for  Aquitaine.  For 
instance,  in  1362  it  was  ordered  that  his  wife’s  demesne  lands  at 
Cottingham,  formerly  leased  at  farm,  were  to  be  cultivated  by 
the  Prince  himself,  and  the  manor  stocked  with  beasts  and  servants 
accordingly.  At  the  same  time  a valuable  stud  of  destriers  (war 
horses)  was  established  at  Cottingham,  the  responsibility  for 
these  “great  horses”  of  the  Prince  being  vested  in  Sir  Robert 
Neville  (see  p.  283). 

Some  indication  that  the  Prince  may  have  proposed  to  visit 
Yorkshire  on  his  return  to  England  is  suggested  by  orders  made 
in  1363-64  that  the  parks  at  both  Cottingham  and  Kirby  Moorside 
were  to  be  enlarged,  and  deer-leaps  made  at  Cottingham.3  The 
following  year  there  is  mention  of  Sir  Ralph  Paynel  as  Surveyor 
of  the  Prince’s  Game  in  Yorkshire. 

On  the  death  of  the  Princess  in  1385, 4 her  estates  passed  to 

1 On  the  16  October  1361  Sir  John  de  Meaux  gave  the  manor  of 
Willerby  (part  of  the  lordship  of  Cottingham)  to  Haltemprice  Priory  for 
the  celebration  of  divine  offices  for  himself  and  his  family  and  for  “Joan, 
Countess  of  Kent,  his  friend  and  benefactress”.  (East  Riding  Antiq.  Soc. 
Trans.,  XVIII,  8). 

2 The  Black  Prince’s  Register,  Vol.  IV  (1361-1365)  contains  many 
orders  of  the  Prince  relating  to  Cottingham  and  other  estates  of  the  Princess. 
From  time  to  time  the  Prince’s  orders  were  authenticated  by  his  sign- 
manuel,  “Houmout”.  During  the  absence  of  the  Prince,  Sir  John  Wingfield 
acted  as  “Governor  of  the  Prince’s  business”,  (see  p.  289). 

3 Compare  the  action  of  Edward  I who  ordered  his  parks  at  Burstwick 
in  Holderness  to  be  enlarged  before  his  long  stay  there  of  ten  weeks,  in 
1304.  It  is,  however,  improbable  that  the  Black  Prince  actually  visited 
Yorkshire  after  his  marriage. 

4 In  her  will  Joan  chose  to  be  buried  with  her  first  husband  in  the 
newly-built  church  of  the  Grey  Friars  founded  by  him  at  Stamford. 



her  son  Thomas  de  Holand1  and  from  him  to  his  sons  Thomas 
and  Edmund,  all  three  being  Knights  of  the  Garter  and  successively 
Earls  of  Kent. 

After  the  death  of  the  last  Lord  Holand,  Earl  of  Kent,  in 
1408,  Cottingham  was  divided  among  his  four  sisters,  who  had 
married  respectively — 

(1)  Cherleton,  Lord  Powis. 

(2)  Beaufort,  Earl  of  Somerset  (whose  granddaughter  married 

Edmund  Tudor,  Earl  of  Richmond). 

(3)  Montacute,  Earl  of  Salisbury. 

(4)  Neville,  son  and  heir  of  the  Earl  of  Westmorland. 

In  course  of  time,  the  four  parts  of  the  lordship  became 
known  as  Cottingham  Powis,  Cottingham  Richmond,  Cottingham 
Sarum  and  Cottingham  Westmorland.  Cottingham  Richmond 
passed  from  Edmund  Tudor  to  his  son  Henry  VII.  Cottingham 
Sarum  descended  through  the  heiresses  Alice  Montacute  and  Anne 
Neville  to  Richard  III,  on  whose  death  in  1485  it  fell  to  the  Crown 
(see  p.  293). 

Cottingham  Church  in  the  Fourteenth  Century 

Except  for  the  upper  part  of  the  tower,  Cottingham  Church 
was  entirely  rebuilt  as  a cruciform  church  in  the  14th  century. 
The  nave  with  aisles  is  in  late  curvilinear  style,  dating  from  the 
second  quarter  of  the  century:  the  chancel  is  early  perpendicular 
work,  its  completion  dating  from  c.  1370.  Work  on  the  tower 
and  transepts,  begun  in  the  earlier  period,  c.  1330,  was  interrupted 
until  work  on  the  chancel  began  over  thirty  years  later. 

It  is  probable  that  the  interruption  of  work  on  the  church 
was  due  primarily  to  the  insecurity  of  the  tower  piers,  which  were 
eventually  strengthened  and  the  arches  underbuilt  when  the 
chancel  was  erected2  and  the  transepts  completed. 

The  early  work  on  the  church  must  be  attributed  to  Thomas, 
Lord  Wake,  whose  growing  debts  after  13303  may  have  contributed 
to  the  suspension  of  building  operations.  The  Cottingham  estate 
decreased  in  value  at  the  time  of  the  Black  Death  and  on  the 
death  of  Wake  in  May  1349,  the  capital  messuage  at  Cottingham 

1 Sir  Thomas  de  Holand,  2nd  (Holand)  Earl  of  Kent,  a godson  of  the 
Black  Prince  is  repeatedly  referred  to  as  "the  Prince’s  son".  On  the  marriage 
of  Holand  in  1366,  the  Prince  demanded  4,000  marks  from  FitzAlan,  Earl 
of  Arundel,  as  dowry.  B.P.  Regr.  IV,  558.  (see  p.  281). 

2 The  same  masons’  marks  appear  in  the  reinforced  arches  of  the 
tower  as  in  the  chancel.  (Cottingham  Local  History  Society’s  Journal 
(March  1957),  No.  30  Masons’  Marks.) 

3 Following  Wake’s  part  in  the  rebellion  of  1328,  the  great  lordship  of 
Cottingham  was  taken  into  the  King’s  hand.  From  1330,  many  loans  were 
raised  by  Wake  on  the  security  of  his  lands  at  Cottingham  and  Buttercrambe. 
(Cal.  Close  Rolls,  1327-30,  437,  529,  &c.). 

(1)  Stuteville  and  Wake 

Robert  de  Stuteville,  c.  1 100. 




Nicholas  de  Stuteville,  d.  1233. 

Joan  de  Stuteville,  d.  1276, 

= Hugh  Wake,  Lord  of  Deeping,  d.  1241. 

Baldwin  Wake  of  Cottingham,  d.  1282. 

John  Wake,  1st  Lord  Wake  of  Liddell,  d.  1300. 

[ Thomas  Wake,  2nd  Lord  Wake, 

: b.  1298,  d.  s.p.  1349, 

:[=  Blanche  dau.  of  Henry  Plantagenet 
j Earl  of  Lancaster,  d.  1380. 

Margaret,  Lady  Wake, 

Countess  of  Kent,  d.  1349, 

= Edmund  Plantagenet  of  Woodstock 
cr.  Earl  of  Kent,  1321,  d.  1330. 

John  Plantagenet, 

Lord  Wake  and  Earl  of  Kent, 
b.  1330,  d.  s.p.  1352, 

= Elizabeth,  dau.  of  the 
Duke  of  Juliers. 

Joan  Plantagenet, 

Lady  Wake  and  Countess  of  Kent, 

b.  1328,  d.  1385,  , , 

(1)  Sir  Thomas  de  Holand,  d.  1360,  (2)  Edward  the 
v Black  Prince, 

d.  1376 

Richard  II. 

(2)  Holand,  Earl  of  Kent. 

Sir  Thomas  de  Holand,  K.G.,  =Joan  Plantagenet,  Lady  Wake,  Countess  of  Kent, 
assumed  the  title  Earl  of  Kent 
in  right  of  his  wife.  | 

Sir  Thomas  de  Holand,  K.G.,  Lord  Wake  and  2nd  Earl  of  Kent,  d.  1397 
= Alice,  dau.  of  Richard  FitzAlan,  5th  Earl  of  Arundel. 

Thomas  de  Holand,  K.G., 

Lord  Wake  and  3rd  Earl  of  Kent, 
d.  s.p.  1400. 

Edmund  de  Holand,  K.G., 

Lord  Wake  and  4th  Earl  of  Kent, 
A 1408. 


Sir  Hugh  Courtenay, 
Lord  Courtenay. 


John  de  Dreux, 
Earl  of  Richmond. 

Joan,  d.  s.p. 

= Edmund 
Duke  of  York. 

Eleanor,  Margaret, 

= Edward  Cherleton,  = John  Beaufort, 
5th  Lord  Powis.  Earl  of  Somerset. 

John  Beaufort, 
Duke  of  Somerset. 

Margaret  Beaufort, 
= Edmund  Tudor, 
Earl  of  Richmond 

Henry  VII  (1485), 
b.  1456, 
d.  1509. 


= Thomas  Montacute, 
Earl  of  Salisbury. 

Alice  Montacute, 

= Richard  Neville  (1), 
Earl  of  Salisbury. 

Richard  Neville  (2), 
Earl  of  Warwick  and 

= Anne  Beauchamp. 


= Sir  John  Neville, 
son  of  Ralph 

1st  Earl  of 

Anne  Neville,  d.  1485. 
Richard  III,  d.  1485. 






V -T 

1 4 !l 

' \ 



was  said  to  be  “in  a ruinous  condition”.1  Pryme  refers  to  “many 
chanterys  in  the  inside  (of  the  Parish  Church)  totally  ruin’d  in 
the  Reformation  ...  in  which  were  many  monuments  of  the 
Estotevils,  de  la  Wakes,  and  others,  of  which  not  the  least  frag- 
ment is  now  to  be  seen.”  (Diary,  p.  228).  No  record  has  survived 
of  the  founding  of  any  chantry  in  the  Parish  Church  nor  of  any 
burial  there  of  any  member  of  the  Stuteville  or  Wake  families,  or 
of  their  successors  the  Holands.2 

The  chancel  of  Cottingham  church  was  erected  during  the 
incumbency  of  Nicholas  de  Luda  and  within  the  years  when  the 
Black  Prince  held  the  lordship  in  his  wife’s  behalf  (see  p.  267). 
Built  of  Tadcaster  stone,  the  chancel  is  spacious  and  lofty,  but 
without  aisles.  It  is  well  lighted  by  four  windows  on  either  side, 
each  of  three  lights,  and  an  east  window  of  seven  lights.3  The 
windows  were  probably  designed  expressly  to  hold  the  two  series 
of  14th  century  heraldic  shields  recorded  by  Dodsworth  and 
Pryme  in  the  17th  century,  viz.  the  seven  royal  shields  in  the 
east  window  and  the  18  (?  originally  24)  shields  of  the  Black 
Prince’s  contemporaries  in  the  24  lights  of  the  side  windows.4 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  chancel  would  be  designed 
to  accommodate  a small  college  of  chaplains.  Pryme  found  in 
the  year  1700  16  seats  on  either  side  of  the  choir,  which  he  regarded 
as  the  prebendal  stalls  of  32  canons,  and  seven  further  stalls 
against  the  south  wall  (see  p.  284). 5 His  reference  to  the  entrance 
from  the  nave  “by  a door”  suggests  that  a solid  screen  had 
perhaps  been  erected  to  separate  a projected  collegiate  chancel 

1 Cal.  Inq.  p.  m.  IX,  201,  233. 

2 The  parish  gilds  at  Cottingham  probably  maintained  a parochial 
chaplain  at  one  of  the  transept  altars.  There  is  mention  of  John  de  Aclam, 
chaplain  in  1332,  and  Richard  de  Melton,  chaplain  of  Cottingham  in  1390. 

3 The  width  of  each  light  in  the  side  windows  is  two  feet,  and  in  the 
east  window  one  foot  eight  inches. 

4 The  Cottingham  windows  may  be  compared  with  those  in  the 
chancel  of  St.  George’s  Church,  Stamford,  built  between  1420  and  1449  by 
Sir  William  Bruges,  first  Garter  King  of  Arms.  The  six  side  windows  at  St. 
George’s,  each  of  four  lights,  were  designed  to  take  the  portraits  and  arms 
of  King  Edward  III  and  the  Founder  Knights  of  the  Order  of  the  Garter. 
Cottingham  chancel  may  well  have  served  as  the  prototype  for  this  later 
Garter  memorial  chapel  at  Stamford.  It  is  perhaps  significant  that  Joan 
Plantagenet,  Lady  of  Cottingham,  had  been  buried  only  a few  years  earlier 
at  the  Franciscan  Friary,  near  to  St.  George’s  Church,  Stamford.  V.C.H. 
Lines.,  II,  228.  (W.  A.  Rees-Jones,  Saint  George,  the  Order  of  St.  George,  and 
the  Church  of  St.  George  in  Stamford,  p.  56,  Plate  XVII.) 

5 It  seems  highly  improbable  that  a college  of  secular  canons  involving 
the  endowment  of  as  many  as  32  prebends  can  ever  have  been  contemplated 
for  such  a small  church  as  Cottingham.  Licences  in  mortmain  were  granted 
for  the  foundation  in  the  East  Riding  of  a small  college  at  Lowthorpe  in 
1333  and  one  at  Sutton-on-Hull  in  1346,  in  each  case  for  six  chaplains. 
(Cal.  Pat.  Rolls  1330-34,  413,  426;  1345-48,  45).  At  Lowthorpe  it  was 
ordained  that  “the  priests  (of  the  college)  shall  each  have  his  seat  in  the 
choir.’’  The  seven  stalls  on  the  south  side  at  Cottingham  may  possibly 
have  been  intended  for  six  chaplains  and  a rector  or  warden. 



from  the  parish  church  proper,  an  arrangement  not  uncommon  in 
14th  century  collegiate  foundations.1 

The  introduction  of  stalls  with  heraldic  shields  probably 
took  place  in  the  earlier  years  of  de  Luda’s  incumbency.  The 
work  of  rebuilding  the  chancel  would  follow  rather  later  (see  p. 
286). 2 The  insertion  of  heraldic  shields  in  the  windows  would  be 
carried  out  after  the  Prince’s  return  from  Aquitaine,  and  probably 
in  1374.  It  seems  unlikely  that  the  shields  would  have  been 
placed  in  the  church  except  with  the  consent  of  the  Black  Prince, 
but  there  is  no  available  evidence  of  any  plan  for  the  endowment 
of  a chantry  foundation  by  him  or  his  widow  at  Cottingham  church.3 

For  the  north  of  England,  the  chancel  at  Cottingham  exhibits 
unusually  early  work  in  the  perpendicular  style,  and  would 
probably  be  designed  by  one  of  the  pioneers  of  the  style  in  the 
south  of  England.  The  designer  may  possibly  have  been  Henry 
Yevele  who  became  the  Black  Prince’s  “mason”  in  1358,  when 
he  contracted  to  build  certain  walls,  &c.,  at  the  Prince’s  manor 
house  at  Kennington.4  He  was  working  for  the  Prince  between 
October  1360  and  August  1362, 5 the  period  when  his  earliest 
work  in  the  new  style  appeared  at  Layer  Marney  and  Westminster 

The  exterior  of  the  14th  century  chancel  as  it  appears 
today  was  not  completed  by  de  Luda.  Glynne  noted  in  1857 — 
“Intended  pinnacles  on  the  (eight)  buttresses  were  never  finished, 
and  the  east  gable  not  quite  complete There  are  no  sedilia, 

1 Note.  1.  In  1797,  "the  body  (nave)  of  Cottingham  church  was 

separated  from  the  other  parts  by  ceilings”  (sic.).  (Gentle- 
man’s Magazine,  LXVII,  II,  1001). 

In  1841,  "the  chancel  was  clean  cut  off  from  the  rest  of  the 
church  by  a glass  door.’’  ( Historical  Notes  on  the  Parish 
Church  of  Cottingham,  W.  Sykes,  1928). 

2.  In  1857,  Sir  Stephen  Glynne  found  the  view  "down  the 
church  entirely  uninterrupted’’.  His  statement  seems  to 
imply  that  the  "complete  internal  restoration’’  of  the 
church  in  1845  (Overton,  History  of  Cottingham,  36)  involved 
the  removal  of  an  obstructing  screen.  Glynne  also  found  the 
chancel  "stalled”  on  the  same  visit.  The  stalls  have  since 
disappeared.  ( Notes  on  Yorkshire  Churches,  Yorks.  Arch. 
Journal,  XV,  490). 

2 In  the  early  years  of  his  incumbency,  de  Luda  was  much  occupied 
at  the  Exchequer  and  abroad  (see  App.  I). 

3 The  Prince  had  returned  from  Aquitaine  in  1371,  with  his  exchequer 
impoverished  and  his  health  shattered. 

4 J.  H.  Harvey,  Henry  Yevele,  pp.  22,  80. 

5 B.  P.  Regr.  IV,  476. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  Yevele  designed  both  the  Prince’s  chantry 
chapel  and  the  Prince’s  tomb  at  Canterbury  Cathedral. 

6 Antiquaries  Journal,  XXVII,  51. 

Note.  The  parish  church  of  Edington,  in  Wiltshire,  built  between  1352 
and  1361  is  considered  a landmark  in  the  perpendicular  style.  The  Black 
Prince  had  some  knowledge  of  this  church,  since  he  persuaded  Bishop 
Edington,  its  builder,  to  appropriate  it  to  the  Prince’s  favourite  Order  of 



which  is  strange  in  so  fine  a church/’1  The  pinnacles  were  in 
fact  added  to  the  buttresses  and  the  east  gable  completed  later  in 
the  19th  century. 

The  Chancel  Builder 

According  to  two  contemporary  inscriptions  (both  recorded 
by  Dodsworth)  the  chancel  of  Cottingham  Church  was  built  by 
Nicholas  de  Luda,  Rector  of  the  Church  from  1362  to  1383.  An 
inscription  formerly  in  the  east  window  read  “Orate  pro  anima 
Domini  Nicholai  de  Louth,  rectoris  hujus  Ecclesie,  qui  istud 
cancellum  fieri  fecit  anno  Domini  mccclxxiiiT’.2 

If  Dodsworth’s  reading  of  the  date  is  correct,  then  probably 
de  Luda  placed  this  inscription  in  the  window  together  with  his 
shield  of  arms  on  completion  of  the  chancel  in  1374.  The  other 
heraldic  shields  in  the  chancel  windows  would  be  inserted  about 
the  same  time  (see  p.  266).  The  second  inscription,  on  de  Luda’s 
brass  in  the  chancel  refers  to  him  as  its  “factor  and  erector”  (see 

Dodsworth  found  de  Luda’s  arms  on  his  brass  and  in  the 
east  window.3 

On  the  brass — “Sable  a wolfe  rampant  or,  in  the  sinister  part 

of  the  shield  a cross  crosslet  f itchy  or  (Louth) . ’ ’4 

In  the  east  window — “A  man  in  a gowne,  kneeling,  over  his 

head,  sa.  a wolfe  rampant  and  a cross 
crosslet  fitchy  or”  followed  by  the 
above  inscription  and  the  date  1374. 5 

Nicholas  de  Luda  was  presented  to  John,  (Thoresby)  Arch- 
bishop of  York  by  command  of  Edward  the  Black  Prince  for 
institution  as  rector  of  the  Parish  Church  of  Cottingham  on  May 
7,  1362.  His  appointment  to  Cottingham  was  made  on  the  in- 
formation of  two  prominent  members  of  the  Black  Prince’s 
entourage,  Sir  Nicholas  de  Louveigne  of  Penshurst,  the  Prince’s 
bachelor,  and  Sir  Robert  de  Walsham,  the  Prince’s  clerk.6 

De  Luda  was  instituted  by  proxy  on  May  16,  when  he  is 
referred  to  as  capellanus.7  His  estate  as  parson  of  the  Church 
was  ratified  by  Letters  Patent  on  June  3,  1362. 8 

At  the  time  of  his  appointment  to  Cottingham,  de  Luda 
was  “canon  of  the  Church  of  Arras  (France)  and  Prebendary  of 
the  prebend  which  Aymo  de  Confalento  lately  held  therein.”  His 

1 Yorks.  Arch.  Journal,  XV,  490. 

2 Yorks.  Arch.  Soc.,  Rec.  Series,  XXXIV,  200. 

3 Pryme  makes  no  mention  of  de  Luda’s  arms  in  either  place. 

4 Burke’s  General  Armory  gives  for  Louth  (co.  Lines.) 

“Or  a wolf  sable  armed  gules.” 

The  cross  crosslet  serves  as  a difference  for  an  ecclesiastic. 

5 Yorks.  Arch.  Journal,  XXVI,  110. 

6 See  Appendix  I. 

7 Thoresby  Reg.,  f.  206.  Note.  Overton  (p.  45)  styles  de  Luda  in- 
correctly as  “a  capuchin  friar”. 

8 Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  1361-64,  218. 


institution  to  Cottingham  was  made  on  an  exchange  of  benefices 
with  Egidius  de  Treas  (Giles  of  Troyes)  called  de  Aula.1  The 
exchanged  benefice  would  probably  be  de  Luda’s  benefice  at 
Arras,  since  in  1363  he  is  referred  to  as  a prebendary  of  Salisbury 
and  St.  Asaph  without  any  further  mention  of  Arras.2 

On  July  24,  1364,  he  was  granted  the  prebend  at  the  Altar 
of  St.  Katherine  in  the  collegiate  church  of  St.  John  at  Beverley, 
for  which  he  had  obtained  Papal  authority  by  April  22,  1363.3 

De  Luda’s  tomb,  covered  by  a black  marble  slab,  inlaid  with 
a brass,  stands  to  the  north  of  the  High  Altar  in  Cottingham 
church.  The  brass  bears  a lengthy  inscription  in  Latin  verse  which 
describes  him  as  rector  of  the  church  and  its  founder  and  builder. 
“Hujus  erat  rector  domus  hie  Nicholaus  humatus, 

Factor  et  erector  de  Luda  queso  beatus 

Prebendas  isti  Beverlaci  quoque  Sarum 

Obiit  VI  die  mensis  Junii  anno  Domini  Millesimo  ccclxxxiii.”4 

The  Latin  inscription  goes  on  to  praise  him  as  one  who 
Ted  the  hungry,  clothed  the  naked,  kindly  helped  the  poor  and 
reconciled  contending  neighbours.'5 

The  brass  shows  an  ecclesiastic  under  a canopy,  wearing  a 
cope  and  vested  in  an  alb  and  the  almuce  of  a canon,  with  the 
Latin  inscription  in  the  margin.6  On  the  dexter  shaft  of  the 
canopy  appears  the  date  1383. 7 

The  Heraldry 

East  window 

In  addition  to  the  arms  of  de  Luda,  the  rector,  Dodsworth8 
records  three  royal  shields  “in  the  Est  window”.  Pryme8  des- 

1 B.  P.  Regr.,  IV,  434. 

2 Cal.  Pap.  Regrs.,  I,  415,  489,  492. 

3 Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  1364-67,  8. 

4 Yorkshire  Arch.  Soc.,  Rec.  Series,  XXXIV,  200; 

Yorks.  Arch.  Journal,  XII,  206. 

De  Luda’s  successor  at  Cottingham  was  instituted  20  June,  1384. 

5 For  possible  translations  of  the  complete  inscription  see — 

Overton,  op.  cit.,  22. 

C.  G.  R.  Birch,  Yorks.  Arch.  Journal,  XIV,  508. 

6 This  effigy  of  de  Luda  has  been  described  as  one  of  “a  number  of 
figures  of  priests  of  about  the  date  1370  which,  from  the  drawing  of  the 
lines  of  the  face,  the  shape  of  the  head,  and  the  treatment  of  the  hair  look 
as  though  they  were  all  from  one  workshop.”  (A.  C.  Bouquet,  Church 
Brasses,  26). 

We  know  from  his  will  that  Henry  Yevele,  ‘‘The  Prince’s  mason” 
sometimes  designed  brasses.  (J.  H.  Harvey,  A Dictionary  of  Medieval 
Architects,  28).  It  may  well  be  therefore  that  Yevele  designed  both  the 
chancel  which  de  Luda  founded  and  the  brass  which  commemorates  him. 

7 The  brass  was  probably  much  worn  by  1855  and  was  then  extensively 
restored,  missing  words  of  the  inscription  being  replaced  from  Dodsworth’s 
notes,  but  the  arms  are  not  now  visible.  (Overton,  op.  cit.  22). 

8 For  references  to  Dodsworth  and  Pryme  on  pages  272  to  295,  see 
p.  265,  f.n.  1 & 2. 



cribes  the  same  three  shields  and  mentions  a further  four.  Shields 
Nos.  3,  4,  6 & 7 were  recorded  by  Pryme  in  a marginal  note  without 
identification.  Nos.  3 to  6 were  not  recorded  by  Dodsworth, 
probably  because  the  arms  were  already  not  clearly  identifiable. 
It  may  be  assumed  that  the  seven  shields  appeared  in  the  seven 
lights  of  the  window1  and  that  they  were  contemporary,  dating 
from  c.  1374  (see  p.  266). 

Fig.  1. 

Arms  of  Edward  the  Black  Prince  and  Joan,  Countess  of  Kent. 

1.  England  a border  arg.  (Dodsworth). 

Sable2  within  a bordure  arg.  three  lions  passant  guardant  or, 
for  Woodstock.  (Pryme). 

1 The  numbers  are  assumed  to  read  from  north  to  south.  Having 
regard  to  Pryme’s  notes,  Nos.  2,  3,  and  5 to  7 are  assigned  to  the  surviving 
sons  of  Edward  III  in  order  of  seniority  ,and  No.  4 to  the  King  (see  p.  275). 

2 This  should  read  "gules”.  Pryme  explains  that  it  is  very  common 
for  gules  to  become  sable  through  age  (see  also  Nos.  3 to  7). 



This  shield  must  be  assigned  to  Joan  Plant agenet,  Lady 
Wake  of  Cottingham,  and  Countess  of  Kent  in  her  own  right 
(1352),  Princess  of  Wales  (1361 J,1  whose  arms  were  impaled  with 
those  of  her  husband,  Edward  Prince  of  Wales  in  shield  No.  2. 
It  is  most  improbable  that  the  shield  is  earlier  than  1361:  it 
probably  dates  from  the  completion  of  the  chancel  in  1374. 

The  same  arms  had  previously  been  borne  in  succession  by 
two  Earls  of  Kent  (Woodstock),  viz.  the  father  and  the  brother 
of  Joan  Plantagenet,  as  follows — 

(1)  Edmund  Plantagenet,2  2nd  son  of  Edward  I and  Queen 
Margaret,  cr.  Earl  of  Kent,  1321,  d.  1330;  married 
Margaret,  Lady  Wake,  sister  and  heiress  of  Thomas 
Lord  Wake,  d.  1349. 

(2)  John  Plantagenet,  Lord  Wake  and  Earl  of  Kent  (1349- 
1352),  son  of  Edmund  Plantagenet  (see  p.  267). 

2.  Dodsworth  records — 

“Quarterly,  France  and  England,  a label  of  three  points  ar., 
paled  with  England  a border  ar.” 

Pryme  records — 

“A  fret  with  the  former  three  lions3  which  belonged  to  a 
woman  and  heiress  empareld  or  quartered  with  it.” 

By  the  term  “fret”  Pryme  means  “a  fret  azure  semee  de 
lis”  (see  below,  No.  3,  &c.)  which  appears  in  the  first  and  fourth 
quarters  of  the  arms  assumed  by  Edward  III  in  1340.  The  label 
of  three  points  argent  indicates  Edward  the  Black  Prince,  eldest 
son  of  Edward  III,  b.  1330,  m.  1361,  d.  1376.  The  impalement 
indicates  his  wife  Joan  Plantagenet,  Princess  of  Wales  (1361  - 
1385)  (see  No.  1). 

5.  Pryme  describes  this  shield  as  follows — 

“Quarterly,  first  and  fourth  grand  quarterly,  first  and 
fourth  sable , a tower  or,  second  and  third  arg.,  a lion  rampant 
sable,  second  and  third  a fret  semee-de-lis.4  The  armes  of 
the  family  of  Towars.”5 

These  arms  are  undoubtedly  those  of  John  of  Gaunt,  assumed 
when  he  became  King  of  Castile  and  Leon,  on  his  marriage  with 
Constance,  daughter  and  heiress  of  Pedro  the  Cruel  in  1372. 

Pryme’s  description  shows  that  John  of  Gaunt  in  the  first 
instance  quartered  the  arms  of  Castile  and  Leon  with  those  of 

1 The  arms  of  Kent  and  of  Wake  are  said  to  have  appeared  on  “a  bed 
of  the  Prince'’,  together  with  "a  White  Hart  in  the  centre  of  a circle”. 
Archaeologia,  XXXI,  364. 

2 Shield  No.  1 is  unjustifiably  attributed  to  him  in  Yorks.  Arch.  Soc., 
Rec.  Series,  XXXIV,  200,  f.n.  2.  ' 

3 In  reference  to  No.  1. 

4 See  Nos.  3,  4,  &c. 

5 This  assignment  is  purely  conjecture  on  the  part  of  Pryme.  He 
refers  in  a footnote  to  a Leeds  family  of  that  name,  c.  1690,  but  makes  no 
attempt  to  explain  the  quarterings. 



France  Ancient  and  England.  In  1386  Gaunt  impaled  the  two 
coats  as  follows — 

Quarterly  1 & 4 Gules,  a castle  triple-towered  or,  Castile. 

2 & 3 Arg.  a lion  rampant  gules,  Leon. 

Impaling  quarterly  1 & 4 Azure  semee  of  fleurs  de  lis  or, 

France,  2 & 3 Gules,  three  lions  passant  in  pale,  or,  England. 

A label  of  three  points  ermine.1 

7.  Quarterly,  France  and  England,  a border  ar.  (Dodsworth).2 

This  coat  is  clearly  that  of  Thomas  Plantagenet,  of  Wood- 
stock,  youngest  son  of  Edward  III;  K.G.  (1380),  Earl  of  Bucking- 
ham (1377),  Duke  of  Gloucester  (1385),  Constable  of  England  from 
1376  to  1397. 

3,  4,  6 & 7.  Pryme  describes  3 & 4 as  “Quarterly,  first  and  fourth 
or  a fret  azure  semee-de-lis,  second  and  third  or 
three  bars  sable.” 

These  arms  must  be  Quarterly  France  Ancient  and  England 
(see  No.  2).  The  metal  “or”  in  quarters  1 & 4 describes  the  fleurs 
de  lis;  the  “three  bars  sable”  in  quarters  2 & 3 are  an  obvious 
misreading  of  Gules  three  lions  passant  guardant  or  (see  p.  273, 
n.  2). 

Under  6 & 7 Pryme  notes  “two  more  frets  as  3 & 4”.  One 
of  these  shields  (No.  7,  see  above)  is  correctly  described  by  Dods- 
worth who  makes  no  mention  of  Nos.  3,  4 & 6. 

Apart  from  the  King,  the  arms  France  Ancient  quartered 
with  England  could  be  borne  between  1340  and  1376  only  by  the 
King’s  five  surviving  sons.3  The  arms  of  the  four  elder  sons 
would  be  differenced  by  a label  of  three  points,  noted  in  the  case 
of  No.  2 by  Dodsworth.4  The  labels  on  the  shields  of  the  next 
three  sons  were  probably  not  identifiable  by  Pryme.  The  arms 
of  the  youngest  son  (No.  7)  were  differenced  by  a bordure,  as 
mentioned  by  Dodsworth,  but  not  by  Pryme. 

If  we  assume  that  the  arms  of  the  King  occupied  the  centre 
light,  then,  shields  1 to  7 can  be  assigned  as  follows — 

1.  Joan,  Princess  of  Wales,  Countess  of  Kent,  Lady  of  the 
Society  of  the  Garter  (in  or  before  1378). 5 b.  1328,  d.  1385. 

2.  Edward,  Prince  of  Wales,  K.G.  (Knight  Founder). 

b.  1330,  d.  1376  (June  8) 

3.  Lionel,  Duke  of  Clarence,  K.G.  (1361). 6 b.  1338,  d.  1368 

1 Sir  Harris  Nicolas,  Scrope  and  Grosvenor  Roll,  II,  165. 

2 Editor’s  f.n.  to  Dodsworth  incorrectly  assigns  this  shield  to  the 
Earl  of  Kent. 

3 William  of  Hatfield,  2nd  son  of  Edward  III,  d.  1342. 

4 For  the  labels  appropriate  to  Nos.  2,  3,  5 & 6,  see  Boutell,  Heraldry, 
(1864),  p.  236-41,  PI.  XXXIV. 

5 Nicolas,  History  of  the  Orders  of  British  Knighthood,  II,  LXXVII. 

6 See  Complete  Peerage,  G.E.C.,  Vol.  II,  App.  B,  p.  527  (Appointments 
to  the  Garter). 



4.  King  Edward  III,  K.G.  (Sovereign  Founder). 

d.  1377  (June  21) 

5.  John  of  Gaunt,  Duke  of  Lancaster,  K.G.  (1361). 

b.  1340,  d.  1399 

6.  Edmund  of  Langley,  Duke  of  York,  K.G.  (1361). 

b.  1341,  d.  1402 

7.  Thomas  of  Woodstock,  Duke  of  Gloucester,1  K.G.  (1380). 

b.  1355,  d.  1397 

It  may  be  assumed  that  the  series  of  royal  shields2  seen  by 
Pryme  occupied  the  lower  part  of  the  seven  lights,  since  Pryme 
reported  “In  the  east  window  is  a great  deal  of  painted  glass 
containing  the  representations  of  Moses,  David,  Solomon  and 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  very  well  done,  but  somewhat  defaced/’3 
Since  Pryme  did  not  mention  the  arms  of  de  Luda  it  seems 
probable  that  these  had  been  removed  to  make  way  for  the 
painted  glass  referred  to. 

The  Choir  Windows 

Dodsworth,  in  1620,  records  “in  windowes  round  about  the 
quyer”  the  arms  with  designations  of  ten  14th  century  English 
earls,  five  knights,  and  Alexander  Neville,  Archbishop  of  York. 
In  addition,  he  records  the  inscriptions  for  the  two  Lords,  Mowbray 
and  Roos,  but  not  their  arms.4 

The  shields  generally  seem  to  have  been  clearly  decipherable. 
In  the  case  of  Richmond  and  Percy,  and  possibly  in  the  case  of 
Neville,  the  shields  were  either  defective  or  incorrectly  read,  as 
noted  below  (see  p.  279).  In  some  cases,  the  designation  of  the 
bearer  has  evidently  been  completed  by  Dodsworth,  as  justified 
by  the  arms. 

Dodsworth  records  as  follows — 

1.  Dominus  de  Mowbray. 

2 — Dominus  de  Roos. 

3.  Checqui  az.  and  or  a canton  erm.  a border  gu.  semi  de 
lions  passant. — Le  Conte  de  Richmont. 

4.  Quarterly,  gu.  a lyon  rampant  or,  second  checqui. — 
Conte  de  Arondale. 

5.  Quarterly,  Valence  and  Hastinges. — Conte  de  Pembrok. 

1 Thomas,  the  youngest  son  was  the  only  one  of  Edward’s  sons  not 
admitted  to  the  Order  of  the  Garter  until  after  the  King’s  death. 

2 For  other  series  of  the  arms  of  Edward  III  grouped  with  those  of 
his  children,  see  Appendix  II. 

3 This  glass,  together  with  the  royal  shields  has  all  disappeared. 
Modern  stained  glass  by  Capronnier  of  Brussels,  with  modern  shields  and 
inscriptions  in  panels  at  the  base,  was  placed  in  the  window  in  the  19th 

4 Two  further  shields,  mentioned  but  not  precisely  identified  by 
Pryme  are  not  related  to  this  series  (see  p.  292). 

1 ord 


Kart  of 

Sir  Edward  k 

I ord 

Earl  of 

Atthfebliop  Alexander 

Earl  of 

Earl  of 

Sir  Heory  de 

Plate  I.  Arms  of  the  Black  Prince’s  Companions  (i). 

Far  I of 
A R UN  DIE  I - 

Far!  of 

Fart  of 

Far!  of 

Fart  of 

Earl  of 

Sir  William  do 

Sir  Hugh  de 

Plate  II. 

Arms  of  the  Black  Prince’s  Companions  (ii). 



6.  Gu.  a fesse  entre  6 cross  crosslets  or.— Conte  de  Warwick. 

7.  Ar.  3 fusells  in  fesse  gu.— Le  Conte  de  Sarum. 

8.  Sa.  a cross  engrailed  or. — (Le  Conte  de)  Suffolk. 

9.  Or,  a chevron  gu. — (Le  Conte  de)  Stafford. 

10.  Quarterly,  gu.  and  or  a mullet  ar. — (Le  Conte  de) 

11.  Or,  3 torteaux  a label  of  three  points  az. — Le  Conte  de 

12.  Gu.  a cinquefoil  and  8 cross  crosslets  in  orle  or. — Le 
(Conte)  de  Angus. 

13.  Quarterly,  ar.  and  gu.  in  the  2 and  3 quarters  a fret  or, 
a bend  sa. — Le  Sieur  de  Spencer. 

14.  Gu.  on  a saltire  ar.  a crescent  sa. — Le  Echevesque  a 

15.  A lyon  ar. — Le  Sieur  de  Percy. 

16.  Gu.  a saltire  erm. — Le  Sieur  de  Nevil. 

17.  Gu.  a cross  patonce  or. — Le  Sieur  de  Latymer. 

18.  Sa.  (a)  lyon  rampant  ar.  crowned  or  a bend  gu.— Le 
Sieur  de  Segrave. 

It  seems  probable  that  the  shields  in  the  chancel  windows 
were  designed  to  commemorate  the  family  and  the  companions  of 
the  Black  Prince1  and  in  particular  those  who  had  taken  part  in 
the  French  campaigns  of  1346  onwards  and  in  the  Scottish  cam- 
paign of  1346. 

Of  the  royal  family  commemorated  in  the  east  window, 
King  Edward  III,  and  the  Black  Prince  alone  of  his  sons  took 
part  in  the  campaign  of  Crecy  and  Calais,  the  Prince  having  been 
knighted  at  La  Hogue  on  12  July,  1346;2  John  Plantagenet,  Earl 
of  Kent,  the  young  Lord  Wake  served  at  Calais.3 

1 The  term  ‘companions’,  in  relation  to  friends  of  the  King  and  the 
Prince  of  Wales  was  in  use  at  the  time  of  Edward  I’s  Scottish  campaign  of 
1304.  (Yorks.  Arch.  Journal  XXXVIII,  522). 

For  two  series  of  heraldic  shields  commemorating  the  Black  Prince 
and  his  contemporaries,  see  App.  11(2). 

Note. — Biographical  details  in  this  paper  on  the  armorial  families 
represented  in  the  Cottingham  shields  are  based  on — 

J.  W.  Clay,  Extinct  and  Dormant  Peerages  of  the  Northern  Counties  of 

G.  C.  E.  The  Complete  Peerage. 

Crecy  and  Calais,  (William  Salt  Historical  Collections,  Vol.  18). 

The  Black  Prince’s  Register,  Vol.  IV. 

The  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 

2 The  Prince  had  then  reached  the  age  of  16;  his  brothers  were  too 
young  for  active  service. 

3 In  October  1346,  the  King  sent  a writ  to  his  cousin  Margaret,  Countess 
of  Kent,  Lady  Wake  to  send  John,  Earl  of  Kent,  her  son,  then  aged  16, 
as  Captain  of  his  men-at-arms  to  proceed  abroad. 


The  Battle  of  Crecy,  fought  on  26  August,  1346  was  followed 
by  the  siege  of  Calais  which  lasted  until  4 August,  1347.  Mean- 
while, the  Battle  of  Neville’s  Cross  was  fought  on  17  October,  1346. 

Of  the  18  shields  (probably  originally  24)  identified  in  the 
eight  chancel  windows,  161  represented  Earls  and  other  leaders 
prominent  in  the  campaigns  of  1346-47.  Of  these,  11  were  present 
at  Crecy,  five  serving  also  at  Calais;  five  were  present  at  Neville’s 
Cross,  three  serving  later  at  Calais.2 

No  fewer  than  12  of  the  shields  represented  Bannerets  who 
fought  in  the  French  campaign,  three  representing  Divisional 
Commanders  at  Crecy,  viz.  Beauchamp,  FitzAlan  and  De  Vere, 
and  three  Divisional  Commanders  at  Neville’s  Cross,  two,  viz., 
Mowbray  and  Roos,3  proceeding  afterwards  to  Calais,  and  Percy 
to  Scotland.  The  shield  of  Lord  Neville  who  has  been  styled 
‘The  Victor  of  Neville’s  Cross”  was  not  found  by  Dodsworth, 
unless  No.  16  was  a misreading.4 

At  Poitiers  in  1356,  the  Black  Prince  shared  his  command 
with  the  Earls  of  Warwick,  Oxford,  Salisbury  and  Suffolk.  On 
the  ill-fated  expedition  to  Aquitaine  in  1372,  the  Prince  was 
supported  by  the  Earls  of  Warwick,  Arundel,  Salisbury  and 
Suffolk,  and  by  the  Lords  Roos,  Despenser,  Neville  and  Percy. 

The  relation  of  the  chancel  shields  to  the  Order  of  the 
Garter  founded  in  1348  has  perhaps  a special  significance.  The 
royal  shields  in  the  east  window  represented  in  addition  to  the 
Sovereign  Founder  of  the  Order5  and  the  Black  Prince,  three 
younger  sons  of  the  King,  who  had  become  Knights  before  1374, 
and  the  Prince’s  wife  who  later  became  a Lady  of  the  Order 
(see  p.  275). 

Of  the  other  chancel  shields,  four  represented  Founder 
Knights  and  five  represented  Knights  appointed  between  1348 
and  1374.  In  addition,  in  the  case  of  four  of  these  shields  of 

1 The  remaining  two  shields  represented  John  de  Dreux,  aged  seven 
in  1346,  who  fought  in  France  in  1359,  and  Alexander  Neville,  later  Arch- 
bishop of  York. 

2 In  each  instance  one  generation  only  has  been  counted. 

3 It  has  been  said  that  Roos  was  at  both  Crecy  and  Neville’s  Cross 
(see  Yorks.  Arch.  Journal  XXIV,  331).  Although  this  seems  improbable, 
Roos,  Mowbray  and  others  joined  the  King  at  Calais  after  Neville's  Cross. 

4 In  some  instances,  two  or  more  members  of  the  same  armorial 
family  were  on  active  service  at  the  same  time.  For  example,  Henry  Percy, 
senior,  was  at  Neville’s  Cross,  while  his  son  Henry  was  at  Crecy  and  Calais. 
The  Neville  family  was  similarly  divided.  Of  the  Beauchamp  family,  four 
were  at  Crecy,  three  becoming  Knights  of  the  Garter,  including  two  Founder 

5 The  contemporary  Lady  Chapel  in  York  Minster,  built  between  1361 
and  1370,  displays  a large  portrait  of  Edward  III  in  one  of  its  windows,  on 
a background  studded  with  garters,  inscribed  “Honi  soit  qui  mal  y pense”. 

In  a window  of  St.  George’s  Church  at  Stamford  there  were  formerly 
in  one  window  about  200  quarries  with  the  Garter  motto  (W.  A.  Rees- Jones 
op.  cit.,  p.  23). 



Garter  Knights,  a son  was  also  elected  to  the  Order  by  1376.1 

The  Cottingham  shields  also  indicate  the  baronial  families 
closely  associated  with  the  Prince  in  peace  as  in  war.  Among  the 
witnesses  at  his  wedding  in  the  Garter  Chapel  at  Windsor  in  1361 
were  the  Earls  of  Suffolk,  Salisbury,  Warwick  and  Pembroke. 
Other  families  represented  were  connected  with  the  Prince  or  the 
Princess  by  marriage.  Two  sisters  of  the  Prince,  Mary  and  Margaret, 
were  married  to  the  Earl  of  Richmond  and  the  Earl  of  Pembroke 
respectively.  Joan  Plantagenet’s  son  Sir  Thomas  de  Holand2 
married  Alice  daughter  of  the  Earl  of  Arundel.  Her  daughters 
Maud  and  Joan  married  Lord  Courtenay  and  the  Earl  of  Rich- 
mond (as  second  wife)  respectively.3 

Other  baronial  families  represented  held  prominent  offices 
in  the  Prince’s  Household,  e.g  Robert  Ufford,  Earl  of  Suffolk  was 
titular  chief  of  the  Prince’s  Council;4  Sir  John  Montacute,  a 
Knight  of  the  Prince’s  Household;  Sir  Edward  Courtenay,  the 
Prince’s  Bachelor;  Sir  Robert  Neville,  Surveyor  of  the  Prince’s 
great  horses;  and  Sir  Hugh  Segrave,  Steward  of  the  Prince’s  lands, 
and  eventually  an  executor  of  his  will.5 

The  arms  of  Mowbray  and  Roos,  omitted  by  Dodsworth,  are 
given  below  (p.  280).  Details  in  Dodsworth’s  list  should  be  amended 
or  extended,  as  follows — 

No.  3.  Richmond;  Chequy  or  and  azure,  a bordure  gules 
charged  with  lions  passant  guardant  of  the  first,  a 
canton  ermine. 

No.  4.  Arundel;  FitzAlan  quartering  Warenne. 

No.  5.  Pembroke;  Hastings  quartering  Valence;  1 and  4, 
Or  a manche  gules,  2 and  3,  Barruly  argent  and 
azure  an  orle  of  martlets  gules. 

No.  15.  Percy;  Or,  a lion  rampant  azure. 

Three  of  the  shields  are  differenced,  viz. — 

No.  14.  The  crescent  sable  on  the  Neville  saltire  was  borne 
in  1357  by  Alexander  Neville,  later  Archbishop  of 
York.6  His  arms  appear  in  the  Choir  at  York 

1 G.E.C.  II,  App.  B.,  p.  534. 

As  to  the  chancel  stall  shields  in  relation  to  the  Garter,  see  p.  285. 

Note. — Neither  Lord  Neville  nor  any  of  the  three  Divisional  Com- 
manders at  Neville’s  Cross  became  a Knight  of  the  Garter. 

2 Neither  the  arms  of  Lord  de  Holand,  2nd  Earl  of  Kent,  nor  those 
of  his  two  sons,  successively  Earls  of  Kent,  are  recorded  as  at  Cottingham. 

3 Four  baronial  families  related  by  marriage  to  Blanche,  Lady  Wake 
(see  p.  266)  were  represented  among  the  Cottingham  shields.  Her  sisters 
married  as  follows — 

Joan,  to  John,  3rd  Lord  Mowbray  (see  p.  280  et  seq.). 

Eleanor,  to  Richard  FitzAlan,  5th  Earl  of  Arundel. 

Mary,  to  Henry,  3rd  Lord  Percy. 

Maud,  to  Ralph  de  Ufford  (see  p.  291). 

4 See  also  Sir  John  Wingfield  (p.  289). 

5 Black  Prince’s  Register,  Vol.  IV,  passim. 

e Archaeologia,  Vol.  LXXXIX,  PI.  IX,  h. 



No.  16.  The  saltire  ermine  in  the  Neville  arms  may  have 
been  a misreading  for  argent.1  If  correctly  read,  the 
ermine  perhaps  indicates  a mark  of  cadency  for  Sir 
Robert  Neville,  2nd  son  of  Ralph,  2nd  Lord  Neville 
of  Raby.2  (see  p.  283). 

No.  18.  The  ‘bend  gules’3  was  perhaps  borne  on  the  shield 
of  Sir  John,  Lord  Segrave,  by  one  of  his  three  sons 
(see  pp.  283-4). 

Where  no  difference  is  indicated,  the  arms  are  assumed  to 
refer  to  the  head  of  the  family  represented. 

No.  1.  Mowbray.  John  de  Mowbray, 

3rd  Lord  Mowbray  of  Thirsk,  Axiholme,  &c.  d.  1361. 
Arms — Gules,  a lion  rampant  argent. 

At  Neville’s  Cross  and  the  siege  of  Calais:  a Banneret. 
John  de  Mowbray,  4th  Lord  Mowbray,  d.  1368. 

With  his  father  at  Neville’s  Cross  and  Calais. 

John  de  Mowbray,  5th  Lord  Mowbray,  d.  1382. 
cr.  Earl  of  Nottingham,  1377. 

Heir  of  his  mother  Baroness  Segrave. 

No.  2.  Roos  or  Ros.  William  de  Roos, 

4th  Lord  Ros  of  Helmsley.  d.  1352. 

Arms — Gules,  three  water-bougets  argent. 

At  Neville’s  Cross  and  Calais:  a Banneret. 

Thomas  de  Roos,  5th  Lord  Ros, 

brother  of  William,  b.  1338,  d.  1384. 

Served  in  the  French  wars. 

No.  3.  De  Dreux.  John  de  Dreux,  Earl  of  Richmond, 

K.G.  1375,  b.  c.1339,  d.  1399. 
Brought  up  by  Edward  III,  his  guardian. 

Served  in  France  with  the  King,  1359. 

The  earldom  of  Richmond  was  restored  to  him  in 
1372;  he  was  deprived  in  1384;  restored  1398. 
Married  (1)  Mary,  sister  of  the  Black  Prince,  1361. 

(2)  Joan,  dau.  of  Thomas  Holand,  Earl  of 
Kent,  and  Joan  Plantagenet  (later  Prin- 
cess of  Wales),  c.1362. 

No  children  of  either  marriage. 

1 The  Editor  of  Dodsworth’s  Yorkshire  Church  Notes  states  that 
“Dodsworth’s  writing  is  sometimes  very  rough  and  confused  and  his  copies 
of  inscriptions  not  altogether  correct."  Yorks.  Arch.  Soc.,  Rec.  Series, 

2 This  shield  appears  in  Well  Church,  Yorkshire.  It  can  be  dated  c.  1367. 
Dodsworth,  op.  cit.,  226. 

3 Woodward,  Heraldry,  II,  37,  gives  Segrave  as  "differenced  by  a 
bendlet  or.” 



No.  4.  FitzAlan,  Richard  FitzAlan,  5th  Earl  of  Arundel  and 
10th  Earl  of  Surrey,  b.  c.1313,  d.  1376. 

Arms — FitzAlan  quartering  Warenne,  1 and  4,  Gules, 
a lion  rampant  or,  2 and  3,  Chequy  or  and 

At  Crecy  (Joint  Commander,  2nd  Divn.)  and  Calais. 
In  1359,  he  made  a loan  of  £2,000  to  the  Black  Prince, 
receiving  as  security  the  gold  crown  and  star  of 
the  French  King. 

(His  eldest  son  Richard,  6th  Earl  of  Arundel  and  11th 
Earl  of  Surrey,  K.G.  1386.  b.  1346,  d.  1397. 

His  dau.  Alice  married  in  1366  Thomas  de  Holand, 
K.G.,  2nd  Earl  of  Kent,  eldest  son  of  Joan 

No.  5.  Hastings.  Laurence  de  Hastings,  3rd  Lord  Hastings,  cr. 
Earl  of  Pembroke,  1339.  b.  1320,  d.  1348. 

At  Neville’s  Cross.  At  Calais.  In  Gascony,  1345. 
John  de  Hastings  (son  of  above),  4th  Lord  Hastings,  2nd 
Earl  of  Pembroke,  K.G.  1370.  b.  1347,  d.  1375. 

He  married  Margaret,  sister  of  the  Black  Prince,  1359. 
With  the  Prince  at  Limoges,  1370. 

Lieutenant  of  the  King’s  forces  in  Aquitaine,  1372. 

No.  6.  Beauchamp.  Thomas  Beauchamp,  3rd  Earl  of  Warwick; 

Founder  K.G.  1348.  Marshal  of  England,  1344. 
d.  1369. 

At  Crecy  (Joint  Commander,  1st  Divn.),  Calais  and 

Constable  of  the  Prince’s  army  in  Gascony,  1360. .. 
Sir  Thomas  Beauchamp,  4th  Earl  of  Warwick,  K.G.  1373. 
d.  1380. 

No.  7.  Montacute  or  Montagu.  William  de  Montacute,  2nd 
Earl  of  Salisbury  (1344),  Founder  K.G.  1348.  b.1328, 
d.  1397. 

Knighted  with  the  Black  Prince  at  La  Hogue,  13 
July,  1346. 

At  Crecy,  Calais  and  Poitiers. 

Captain  of  Calais,  1379. 

In  1344  the  Earl  was  crowned  King  of  the  Isle  of 
Man,  which  he  sold,  together  with  the  Crown,  to 
Sir  William  Scrope,  Earl  of  Wiltshire,  in  1393. 
He  died  in  France  in  1397,  the  last  surviving  Founder 
Knight  of  the  Garter. 

No.  8.  Ufford.  Robert  de  Ufford,  2nd  Lord  Suffolk,  cr.  Earl  of 
Suffolk,  1337,  K.G.  c.  1349.  b.  1298,  d.  1369. 

With  the  King  in  Flanders,  1339. 

At  Crecy,  Calais  and  Poitiers. 

Titular  chief  of  the  Prince’s  Council,  1351. 

His  son  William  de  Ufford,  2nd  Earl  of  Suffolk  (1369-82). 
K.G.  c.  1376.  b.  c.1339,  d.  1382. 


No.  9.  Stafford.  Ralph  Stafford,  1st  Earl  of  Stafford  (1351). 
Founder  K.G.  1348.  b.  1301,  d.  1372. 

Steward  of  the  King’s  Household,  1341. 

Seneschal  of  Aquitaine,  1345-46. 

At  Crecy  and  Calais;  a Banneret. 

His  son  Sir  Hugh  Stafford,  2nd  Earl  of  Stafford.  K.G. 
1375.  d.  1385. 

In  Castile,  1367,  and  Aquitaine,  1359. 

A younger  son  of  the  1st  Earl,  Sir  Richard  Stafford  was 
a liaison  officer  between  the  Black  Prince  and  the 
English  administration  during  the  Prince’s  campaign, 

No.  10.  de  Vere.  John  de  Vere,  7th  Earl  of  Oxford,  d.  1358. 

At  Crecy  (Joint  Commander  1st  Divn.),  Calais  and 

Thomas  (son  of  John)  de  Vere,  8th  Earl  of  Oxford, 
b.  1337,  d.  1372. 

Chamberlain  of  England,  1362. 

Robert  (son  of  Thomas)  de  Vere,  9th  Earl  of  Oxford, 
b.  1362,  d.  1392. 

No.  11.  Courtenay.  Hugh  Courtenay  (1),  Earl  of  Devon  (1340), 
Knight  Banneret,  b.  1303,  d.  1377. 

Founder  K.G.  1348. 

Hugh  Courtenay  (2),  son  of  Hugh  (1).  b.  1327,  d.s.p. 
before  1349. 

At  Crecy  and  Calais. 

Hugh  Courtenay  (3),  Lord  Courtenay,  son  of  Hugh  (2). 
Knighted  by  the  Black  Prince,  1367. 

Married  Maud,  dau.  of  Thomas  Holand  and  Joan 
Plantagenet.  d.s.p.  1374. 

Both  Hugh  (2)  and  Hugh  (3)  died  in  the  lifetime  of 
Hugh  (1). 

Edward  Courtenay,  Earl  of  Devon  (1377),  son  of  Hugh  (2). 
Referred  to  as  “The  Prince’s  Bachelor”  1361. 

No.  12.  Umfraville.  Gilbert  de  Umfraville,  Earl  of  Angus, 
d.  1381. 

At  Neville’s  Cross. 

In  1364  he  held  of  the  Prince,  Hessle  and  other 
manors  appurtenant  to  the  lordship  of  Cottingham 
(Sir  William  Umfraville  was  with  the  King  at  Crecy, 
serving  “continuously  until  the  King’s  return  to 

No.  13.  Despenser.  Edward  le  Despenser,  Lord  Despenser. 
K.G.  1361.  b.  1336,  d.  1375. 

At  Poitiers,  1356. 

In  Gascony,  1359,  1372. 



No.  14.  Neville.  Alexander  Neville,  received  a prebend  of  York 
by  command  of  Edward  III  in  1361,  Archbishop  of 
York  (1374-88),  Archbishop  of  St.  Andrews,  1388. 
d.  1392. 

Consecrated  4 June,  1374. 

Son  of  Ralph,  2nd  Lord  Neville  of  Raby  (see  No.  16). 
A supervisor  of  the  will  of  Edward  III,  1377. 

No.  15.  Percy.  Henry  de  Percy,  2nd  Lord  Percy  of  Alnwick, 
b.  1299,  d.  1352. 

At  Neville’s  Cross  (Commander  of  the  3rd  Divn.). 
Steward  of  the  King’s  Household,  1339. 

Sir  Henry  de  Percy,  3rd  Lord  Percy,  b.  1320,  d.  1368. 
At  Crecy  and  Calais. 

In  Gascony,  1349,  and  Champagne,  1359. 

Sir  Henry  de  Percy,  4th  Lord  Percy,  K.G.  c.1366.  cr. 
Earl  of  Northumberland,  1377.  b.  1342,  d.  1408. 
Marshal  of  England,  1376. 

No.  16.  Neville.  PRalph,  2nd  Lord  Neville  of  Raby.  d.  1367. 
Arms — Gules,  a saltire  argent.1 
In  command  at  Neville’s  Cross. 

His  eldest  son  Sir  John,  3rd  Lord  Neville,  K.G.  1369. 
d.  1388. 

"One  of  the  most  gallant  followers  of  the  Black 

At  Neville’s  Cross.  In  Castile,  1369. 

Lieutenant  of  Aquitaine,  1378. 

His  second  son  Sir  Robert  Neville,  d.  1369. 

At  Crecy.  In  Gascony  and  at  Poitiers. 

Received  a grant  of  100  marks  per  annum  in  1357 
"for  good  service”. 

Styled  the  Prince’s  bachelor,  he  was  made  "Surveyor 
of  the  great  horses”  to  the  Prince  in  1361. 

No.  17.  Latimer.  William  Latimer,  4th  Lord  Latimer  of  Danby, 
K.G.  1362.  b.  c.1329,  d.  1381. 

At  Crecy;  a Banneret  at  the  age  of  16. 

In  Gascony,  1359. 

Chamberlain  of  the  Household  of  Edward  III,  1376. 
An  executor  of  Edward  Ill’s  will,  1377. 

Council  of  Regency  for  Richard  II,  1377. 

No.  18.  Sir  John  de  Segrave,  6th  Lord  Segrave.  b.  1315,  d.  1353. 
Sir  Hugh  de  Segrave,  3rd  son  of  Lord  Segrave.  d.  1385. 
Served  in  the  French  wars. 

Controller  of  the  King’s  Wardrobe,  1360-68. 
Described  in  the  will  of  the  Black  Prince  as  "Senescal 
de  nos  terres” — Steward  of  the  Prince’s  lands.2 

1 see  p.  280,  No.  16,  f.n.  1 and  2. 

2 Segrave  had  earlier  been  Esquire  of  Queen  Philippa  and  Steward 
of  John  of  Gaunt’s  Household.  After  the  Prince’s  death,  he  was  Steward 
of  the  lands  of  Joan,  Princess  of  Wales. 


Executor  of  the  Prince,  1376. 

Council  of  Regency  for  Richard  II,  1377. 

Treasurer  of  England,  1382. 

Sir  Stephen  de  Segrave,  eldest  son  of  Lord  Segrave. 

At  Crecy. 

Sir  John  Segrave,  Lord  of  Folkestone,  2nd  son  of  Lord 
Segrave.  d.  1349. 

At  Crecy. 

The  Chancel  Stalls 

The  heraldic  shields  on  the  chancel  stalls  formerly  in  Cotting- 
ham  church  present  a difficult  problem.  The  stalls  are  not 
mentioned  by  Dodsworth,  but  Pryme  refers  to  them  as  follows— 
“ Under  all  these  (i.e.  the  arms  in  the  chancel  roof)  on  both  sides 
of  the  chancel,  is  yet  standing,  and  yet  to  be  seen,  thirty  two 
prebendarys’  or  channons’  seats,  sixteen  on  one  side  and  sixteen 
on  the  other.” 

Pryme  continues  “In  the  turning  up  of  the  seats  in  most  of 
which  canons’  stalls  is  discover’d  great  coats  of  armes,  curiously 
cut  on  the  lower  sides.”  He  also  refers  to  “seven  other  such  like 
seats,  but  smaller  and  lower  than  the  rest  on  the  south  wall,” 
but  without  any  reference  to  heraldic  shields.  These  latter  seats 
may  have  occupied  the  place  on  the  south  side  of  the  sanctuary 
normally  assigned  to  the  sedilia  (see  p.  270). 

Pryme  records  as  follows — 

On  the  south  side  of  the  chancel  beginning  at  the  chancel 
door,  i.e.,  from  west  to  east — 

1.  Three  bars. 

2.  An  eagle,  double-headed,  and  displayed. 

3.  Six  lozenges  pierced.  3,  2,  1. 

4.  A fess  nebulee  between  six  crosses  crosslet  fitchee  (Lovel). 

5.  Pool.  A fess  between  three  lions’  faces. 

6.  Scroop.  A bend. 

7.  A cross  moline  (Monceaux). 

8.  Boynton.  A fess  between  three  crescents. 

9.  Peche.  A fess  between  two  chevrons  (Lisle?  who  married 
De  la  Pole). 

10.  A fess  dancette  between  six  crosses,  four  in  chief,  two 
in  base  (Engaine). 

11.  A chevron  between  three  covered  cups. 

12.  A lion  rampant,  within  a bordure  charged  with  fourteen 

On  the  north  side,  proceeding  from  west  to  east1 — 

13.  On  a bend,  three  pairs  of  wings  (Wingfield,  who  married 

Pole,  Earl  of  Suffolk). 

1 These  shields  are  numbered  by  Pryme  1 to  8. 



14.  A cross  flory.  Ld.  Lassels,  of  Sutton. 

15.  A fess  between  six  crosses  flory. 

16.  A lion  rampant,  crowned  (Morley,  who  married  de  la 

17.  A chevron  between  three  escallops. 

18.  A cross  engrailed,  in  the  dexter  quarter  a rose  (Ufford). 

19.  Chequy,  on  a bend  six  (uncertain  what)  ? a bend  fretty 

20.  Six  escallops,  3,  2,  1.  Eastofts’  armes. 

Of  the  32  stalls,  Pryme  was  able  to  record  the  shields  of  only 
20,  and  adds  “Many  are  spoiled  and  so  consumed  with  age,  on 
both  sides,  that  I could  not  possibly  make  anything  of  them.” 

The  deterioration  of  the  shields  would  probably  obscure  any 
marks  of  cadency  or  differencing  on  the  devices.  For  instance,  in 
the  case  of  No.  9,  Pryme  assigns  the  shield  to  Peche  (or  Pecche) 
and  to  Lisle  as  an  alternative,  but  does  not  record  the  Pecche 
label.1  Again,  if  the  shield  of  Scrope  (No.  6)  originally  bore  a 
label,  the  shield  should  be  assigned  to  Scrope  of  Masham. 

Pryme  does  not  mention  any  colour  on  these  shields.  In  the 
absence  of  any  label  on  No.  9 it  is  therefore  impossible  to  decide 
between  Peche  and  Lisle. 

Of  the  20  shields,  12  can  be  fairly  reliably  identified,  four 
are  uncertain  and  four  not  yet  identified.  At  least  six  of  these 
shields  relate  to  families  associated  with  Yorkshire  (three  with 
the  East  Riding).  As  with  the  shields  in  the  side  windows,  a 
number  of  the  stall  shields  can  be  assigned  to  war-time  ‘com- 
panions’ of  the  Black  Prince.  Not  fewer  than  eight  took  part  in 
the  French  campaigns,  four  serving  as  Knights  Banneret.  One, 
and  possibly  two  or  three  of  the  shields  represent  Knights  of  the 
Garter  (Nos.  9,  14,  18). 

Probably  further  shields  not  identified  by  Pryme  or  merely 
conjectured  by  him  to  refer  to  Yorkshire  families,2  e.g.  Cheney3 
and  Lovel  (Nos.  19  & 4)  may  in  fact  relate  to  friends  of  the  Prince. 

The  shield  of  Sir  John  Wingfield,  the  Prince’s  chief  house- 
hold officer  was  the  first  (identifiable)  shield  from  the  entrance  to 
the  chancel  on  the  north  side.  The  approximate  date  of  the  stall 
shields  may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  prominent  place  given 
to  Sir  John  Wingfield’s  shield.  Steward  of  the  Prince’s  lands  and 
Governor  of  his  business,  Wingfield  died  in  July  1361,  three 
months  before  the  Prince’s  marriage.  The  expenses  of  Wingfield’s 

1 See  Boutell,  op.  cit.,  224. 

2 Pryme’s  tendency  to  conjecture  in  regard  to  local  families  is  illus- 
trated by  his  absurd  assignment  of  No.  5 in  the  east  window  (page  274). 

3 Cheney  of  Thorngumbald  does  not  appear  in  armorial  families  until 
the  16th  century. 


funeral  in  the  collegiate  church  at  Wingfield,  founded  by  Sir  John, 
were  paid  by  the  Prince.1 

The  arms  on  the  stall  opposite  the  stall  bearing  Wingfield's 
arms  were  almost  certainly  those  of  Wake  (see  p.  291).  The  Wake 
arms  were  actually  borne  by  Joan,  Princess  of  Wales  as  Lady 
Wake  of  Cottingham  in  1357  during  her  previous  marriage  with 
Lord  Thomas  de  Holand.2  Next  to  these  conjectural  arms  of  the 
Princess  were  those  of  the  Emperor,  Lewis  V.  The  Emperor  and 
his  son  William  were  related  to  both  the  Prince  and  the  Princess 
by  marriages  (see  pp.  291-2). 

Of  eight  further  shields  reasonably  identifiable  as  to  the 
families,  four  probably  relate  to  knights  who  died  between  1352 
and  1358  and  four  to  knights  who  died  between  1365  and  1369. 
Other  shields  relate  to  families  who  flourished  about  this  time.  It 
seems  reasonable  therefore  to  conclude  that  this  series  of  shields 
should  be  dated  in  the  early  years  after  the  Prince’s  marriage  in 
1361,  and  well  before  the  present  chancel  was  completed. 

It  may  be  suggested  that  the  stall  shields  represent  bene- 
factors who  contributed  to  the  building  of  the  new  chancel  about 
this  time.  In  the  case  of  the  neighbouring  collegiate  church  of 
Sutton-on-Hull,  Pryme  in  1700  recorded — 

“In  the  quire  has  been  seats  for  the  collegians  turning  up 
like  the  prebendary's  seats  in  collegiate  churches,  with  the 
armes  of  the  builders  thereon,  only  one  of  which  is  now 
remaining  (which  is  a cross  flure,  which  I take  to  have  been 
the  armes  of  Lassels).’’3 

It  may  well  be  that  at  Cottingham  the  Prince,  as  Patron, 
followed  a precedent  made  by  the  King  at  St.  George’s  Chapel, 
Windsor.  In  the  Statutes  of  the  Order  of  the  Garter  promulgated 
in  1348,  after  provision  had  been  made  for  the  canons  and  the 
‘poor  Knights'  of  Windsor,  it  was  ordained  in  Statute  XXXII 
that — 

“If  any  other  Knight  not  of  the  said  Company  of  the  Garter 
or  any  other  person  would  contribute  not  less  than  x pounds 
per  annum  to  the  said  college  in  order  to  share  in  the 
devotions  conducted  there,  the  name  of  the  said  benefactor 
shall  be  recited  in  the  Kalendar  of  Benefactors.’’4 

There  seems  to  be  no  evidence  to  show  that  this  proposal 
was  ever  put  into  operation  at  Windsor.  In  the  case  of  Cottingham, 
there  is  however  no  obvious  explanation  of  the  stall  shields,  except 

1 Wingfield  church  (Suffolk)  was  rebuilt  following  the  foundation 
charter  of  its  college  June  1362.  Mass  was  to  be  said  daily  in  the  church 
for  the  health  of  . . . "the  most  serene  Prince  of  Wales,”  and  for  Sir  Michael  de 
la  Pole  and  “the  noble  man  Lord  Robert,  Earl  of  Suffolk.”  (see  pp.  287and281). 
The  Prince’s  arms,  dating  from  this  time,  are  still  to  be  seen  in  Wingfield 
church.  (Aldwell,  Wingfield;  its  Church , Castle  and  College,  p.  75,  106). 

2 Archaeologia,  Vol.  LXXXIX,  p.  10. 

3 Pryme  assumed  that  "a  cross  flory”  at  Cottingham  (No.  14)  also 
represented  "Ld  Lassels  of  Sutton”,  (see  p.  289). 

4 Nicolas,  op.  cit.,  I,  30. 



perhaps  this  prevalent  practice  of  endowing  obits,  which  would 
be  recorded  in  a ‘Kalendar  of  Benefactors.’1 

Stalls.  South  Side 

No.  5.  Pole.  Sir  William  de  la  Pole.  Knight  Banneret,  1339. 
b.  c.1295,  d.  1366. 

Arms— Azure,  a fess  between  three  leopards’  faces  or. 
Acted  in  an  advisory  capacity  during  the  seige  of 

Sir  Michael  de  la  Pole,  Earl  of  Suffolk  1385.  b.  c.1330, 
d.  1389. 

He  married  Katherine,  dau.  and  heiress  of  Sir  John 
Wingfield  (see  No.  13). 

Arms — De  la  Pole  (as  above);  after  c.1375  quartered 
with  Wingfield. 

At  Crecy:  A Knight  in  the  King’s  Divn. 

In  Picardy,  1372:  a Banneret. 

In  France  with  the  Black  Prince  1355,  1359,  1370. 
Captain  of  Calais. 

Lord  Chancellor,  1383-86. 

No.  6.  Scrope.  Sir  Richard  Scrope,  1st  Lord  Scrope  of  Bolton, 
b.  c.1326,  d.  1403. 

Arms — Azure,  a bend  or. 

At  Neville’s  Cross,  where  he  was  knighted. 

At  Calais. 

In  Castile,  1367. 

In  1360,  in  the  retinue  of  John  of  Gaunt  (according 
to  one  deponent  in  the  Scrope-Grosvenor  con- 
troversy (1389)  "with  no  less  than  five  others  of 
the  Scrope  family”)  and  with  Gaunt  into  Spain 

He  married  Blanche  dau.  of  Sir  William  de  la  Pole 

Sir  Henry  le  Scrope,  1st  Lord  Scrope  of  Masham.  b.  c.1315, 
d.  1391. 

Arms — Azure,  a bend  or,  differenced  by  a label  argent. 
At  Crecy  and  Calais;  a Banneret. 

In  France  with  the  King  (1359)  until  the  Peace  of 
Bretigny  (1360). 

Governor  of  Calais,  1369. 

1 It  is  of  course  notorious  that  endowments  of  obits  were  apt  to  be 
forgotten,  e.g.  the  sum  of  £200  given  by  Bishop  William  de  Edington,  the 
first  Prelate  of  the  Order  of  the  Garter  to  endow  an  obit  at  St.  George’s 
Chapel  had  disappeared  by  the  time  of  a visitation  in  1378.  (Roberts, 
op.  cit.,  p.  149). 



No.  7.  Monceux.  Sir  John  de  Monceux,  Lord  of  Barmston, 
alive  1348. 

Arms — Or,  a cross  moline  gules. 

He  paid  an  aid  for  knighting  the  Black  Prince  in  1346. 
In  1347,  John  de  Monceaux,  the  King’s  Sergeant  at 
Arms  (then  in  France)  was  granted  for  his  good 
service,  12d  daily  for  his  life. 

No.  8.  Boynton.  Sir  Ingelram  de  Boynton,  Lord  of  Acklam. 
d.  1352. 

Arms — Or,  a fess  between  three  crescents  gules. 

His  mother  was  daughter  of  Sir  Ingelram  de  Monceux, 
Lord  of  Barmston. 

His  son  Sir  Walter  de  Boynton,  alive  1376. 

Sir  Thomas,  son  of  Sir  Walter,  1340-1402. 

No.  9.  ? Lisle.  Sir  John  de  Lisle  (or  de  Insula),  2nd  Lord  Lisle 
of  Rougemont,  co.  Yorks.  Founder  K.G.,  1348. 
b.  1318,  d.  1356. 

Arms — Or,  a fess  and  two  chevrons  sable. 

At  Crecy  where  he  was  made  a Banneret. 

With  the  Black  Prince  at  Poitiers,  1356,  where  he 
died  of  wounds. 

His  son,  Robert,  3rd  Lord  Lisle  held  Harewood,  co. 
Yorks.,  1365. 

(Pryme’s  reference  to  “Lisle?  who  married  De  la 
Pole”  is  not  relevant.  The  reference  may  be  to 
a later  Gerard  de  Lisle  who  is  said  to  have 
married  a daughter  of  Michael  de  la  Pole.) 

? Peche.  Sir  Robert  Peche,  Mayor  of  London,  1362. 
Arms — Argent,  a fess  between  two  chevrons  gules,  a 
label  azure  bezantee. 

He  made  great  loans  to  the  Black  Prince,  holding  the 
Crown  of  France  at  one  time  as  security. 

(Arms  of  Peche  formerly  (c.1700)  in  Holy  Trinity 
Church,  Hull.  De  la  Pryme  MS.  History  of 
Holy  Trinity  Church,  p.  87.) 

No.  10.  Engayne  (or  Engaine).  Sir  John  Engaine,  Lord  Engaine. 
b.  c.1303,  d.  1358. 

Arms — Gules,  a fess  dancetty  between  six  cross — 
crosslets  or. 

With  the  King  in  France,  1345. 

In  1346,  received  writs  “to  collect  men-at-arms  .... 

to  join  the  King  at  Calais.” 

(Arms  of  Engaine  on  a de  la  Pole  tomb  in  Holy 
Trinity  Church,  Hull.) 

Robert  Engayne,  Prior  of  Haltemprice,  1328-31. 



No.  11.  Boteler  (or  Botiller).  Sir  John  le  Botiller. 

Arms — Azure,  a chevron  between  three  covered  cups 

At  Crecy  in  the  retinue  of  Richard,  Earl  of  Arundel. 
William  le  Botiller,  Lord  Botiller.  d.  1369. 

No.  12.  ? Dunbar.  Patrick  of  Dunbar,  5th  Earl  of  March  (Scot- 
land). b.  1309,  d.  1368. 

Arms — Gules,  a lion  rampant  argent,  a bordure  of 
the  last  semee  of  roses  of  the  field. 

Resigned  his  Scottish  earldom  1368. 

Suspected  of  a secret  leaning  to  the  English  in  1334 
(Rymer’s  Faedera,  II,  876). 

(Pryme  records  the  lion  rampant  and  14  cinquefoils 
within  a bordure.) 

Stalls.  North  Side 

No.  13.  Wingfield.  Sir  John  Wingfield,  Knight  Banneret, 
d.  July  1361. 

Arms — Argent,  on  a bend  gules  cotised  sable,  three 
wings  in  lure  of  the  first. 

At  Cre9y,  Calais  and  Poitiers. 

He  served  (1)  William,  2nd  Earl  of  Salisbury  during 
his  minority,  embarking  for  France  in  1346  in 
Salisbury’s  retinue  (see  p.  281). 

(2)  Countess  of  Warenne  as  Chief  of  her  Council. 

(3)  Edward  the  Black  Prince. 

Between  1350  and  July  1361  he  served  as  Steward  of 
the  Prince’s  lands,  Chief  of  the  Prince’s  Council, 
Attorney  of  the  Prince,  and  Governor  of  the 
Prince’s  business.1  He  received  the  considerable 
wage  of  10s.  a day. 

Wingfield  died  of  plague  July  1361  before  the  marriage 
of  the  Prince.  His  burial  expenses  at  Wingfield 
£57.  13s.  4d.  were  paid  by  the  Prince  in  Nov- 
ember 1361  (see  p.  286,  f.n.  1).  His  estates 
passed  to  the  de  la  Pole  family  of  Hull  (see  No.  5). 

No.  14.  Pryme  records  "a  cross  flory”  and  attributes  this  shield 
(and  "a  cross  flure”  at  Sutton)  to  “Ld  Lassels  of  Sutton.” 
Note: — The  arms  of  Lacells  of  Thirsk  were  ‘‘sable,  a cross 
flory  or.”  There  was  no  Lord  Lassels  of  Sutton; 
the  arms  of  Lascelles  of  Escrick  (13th  century) 
occur  at  Swine  (see  p.  295). 

1 B.P.  Regr.,  Vol.  IV,  passim. 

Wingfield  wrote  the  Prince’s  Acts:  His  letters  regarding  the  Peace 
Envoys  in  1355  are  recorded.  (Avesbury,  pp.  432,  439). 



The  arms  at  both  Cottingham  and  Sutton1  were  probably 
those  of  Ughtred,  intended  to  indicate  benefactions  on  the 
rebuilding  of  the  chancels  (see  p.  286). 

Sir  Thomas  Ughtred  (or  Oughtred),  1st  Lord  Ughtred, 

Lord  of  Scarborough,  Catton  and  Kexby  (co.  Yorks.). 

b.  c.1292,  d.  1365;  buried  at  Catton  Church. 

Arms — Gules,  on  a cross  patonce  (fleurie)  or,  5 
mullets  of  the  same.2 

A distinguished  soldier  in  the  Scottish  and  French 

Knighted  1324,  K.G.  c.1360. 

He  accompanied  Edward  Baliol  in  his  expedition 
from  Hull  against  Scotland  in  1332:  at  Baliol’s 

Master  of  the  “King’s  Galley  of  Hull’’  and  Governor 
of  Berwick,  1339.3 

Banneret  of  the  King’s  Household,  1334. 

At  Crecy  and  Calais:  Sub-Marshal  of  the  Army  before 
Calais,  1346. 

Lieutenant  of  the  Army,  1351. 

Lieutenant  of  the  Earl  of  Warwick  and  Marshal  of 
the  Army,  1353. 

No.  16.  Morley.  Robert,  Lord  Morley  of  Morley,  co.  Norfolk. 

d.  1360. 

Arms — Argent,  a lion  rampant  sable,  langued  and 
crowned  gules. 

At  Crecy  and  Calais:  a Banneret. 

Marshal  of  Ireland. 

He  died  in  France  (1360)  during  the  military  opera- 
tions, and  is  described  as  “one  of  the  most 
famous  warriors  of  the  period’’. 

(Pryme’s  reference  to  “Morley  who  married  De  la 
Pole”,  relates  to  Henry  Lovel,  2nd  and  last 
Lord  Morley,  who  died  1489). 

1 (1)  Lord  Ughtred  and  Sir  John  de  Sutton  served  together  on  many 
commissions  of  array,  commissions  of  the  peace,  &c.,  &c.  Both  were 
rewarded  for  good  service  done  at  Calais,  where  John  de  Sutton  was 
knighted.  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  1345-48,  533,  566). 

(2)  Sir  Thomas  Ughtred,  son  of  Lord  Ughtred,  sold  for  100  marks 

a third  part  of  the  manor  of  Sutton of  his  inheritance.  (T.  Blashill 

“Sutton-in-Holderness”,  p.  167). 

2 The  arms  of  Ughtred  appear  at  Holy  Trinity  Church,  Hull,  as  a 
cross  patonce  and  (formerly)  at  Bubwith  as  a cross  flory.  (Dodsworth,  op. 
cit.,  p.  206).  (Yorks.  Arch.  Jnl.  XXVI,  123).  The  cross  patonce  on  the 
gate-house  at  Kirkham  Abbey  (c.1300)  and  the  “plain  cross”  on  the  tomb 
of  Sir  John  de  Sutton  (c.1357)  possibly  represent  the  coat  of  Ughtred. 
Sir  Robert  Ughtred,  the  father  of  Lord  Ughtred,  was  Lord  of  Catton,  &c., 
and  High  Sheriff  of  Yorkshire  in  1300. 

3 Cal.  Close  Rolls,  1339-41,  135. 



No.  18.  Ufford  (so  attributed  by  Pryme). 

Arms — A cross  engrailed,  in  the  dexter  quarter  a rose.1 
This  may  perhaps  have  been  the  shield  of  either — 

(1)  Sir  Thomas  de  Ufford,  K.G.  1360. 

He  was  with  the  Black  Prince  in  Castile,  Battle 
of  Najera,  1367. 

(2)  Ralph  de  Ufford, 

who  married  Maud,  sister  of  Blanche,  Lady  Wake, 
and  daughter  of  Henry  Plantagenet,  3rd 
Earl  of  Lancaster. 

The  attribution  of  the  following  four  shields  is  conjectural — 
South  Side 

No.  1.  ? Wake.  Three  bars  (Pryme). 

This  may  be  a misreading  of  the  Wake  arms,  the 
three  torteaux  being  read  as  a bar. 

Arms— Or,  two  bars  gules  in  chief  three  torteaux. 
Lord  Thomas  Wake  died  1349. 

His  widow  Blanche  (of  Lancaster)2  died  1380. 

The  title  of  Lord  Wake  was  continued  by  John 
Plantagenet,  Earl  of  Kent  (1349-52),  and  of 
Lady  Wake  by  his  sister  Joan  Plantagenet, 
Countess  of  Kent  (1352-85).  (see  p.  267). 

The  arms  of  Kent  (Woodstock)  and  the  arms  of 
Wake  formerly  appeared  together  in  a Window 
in  Selby  Abbey.3 

The  arms  of  Wake  also  appear  on  a seal  of  Sir  Thomas 
de  Holand,4  for  his  wife,  Joan  Plantagenet,  sue 
jure  baroness  Wake  of  Liddell,  1357. 

No.  2.  ? The  Eagle  of  the  Emperor. 

Arms — Or,  an  eagle  with  two  heads  sable. 

“An  eagle,  double-headed,  and  displayed/’  (Pryme). 
The  Emperor  Lewis  V (1328-47)  married  Margaret, 
sister  of  Philippa  of  Hainault.  He  was  therefore 
uncle  of  the  Black  Prince.5 

1 The  rose  on  the  shield  possibly  indicates  the  red  rose  of  Lancaster, 
in  reference  to  the  wife  of  Ralph  de  Ufford. 

2 In  April  1348,  about  the  time  when  the  Order  of  the  Garter  was 
founded,  Lady  Wake  received  for  the  Hastiludes  (or  tournaments)  at 
Lichfield,  blue  cloth  and  fur  for  her  livery.  Lady  Juliers,  the  wife  of  John 
Plantagenet,  and  Lady  Seagrave  received  similar  gifts  from  the  Wardrobe. 
(Archaeologia,  XXXI,  117). 

3 Dodsworth,  op.  cit.,  249. 

Note — At  Hessle  Church,  in  1724,  John  Warburton  recorded  the  arms 
of  Wake  and  what  were  probably  the  arms  of  Kent,  in  a window 
together.  (B.M.Ms.,  Lans.  923). 

4 Holand  in  1354  and  1357  bore  a plain  black  shield.  (Archaeologia, 
Vol.  LXXXIX,  p.  10,  PI.  IXj). 

5 The  Emperor’s  eagle,  double-headed  and  displayed  appears  on  the 
tomb  of  Edmund  of  Langley,  K.G.,  Duke  of  York,  brother  of  the  Black 
Prince,  at  King’s  Langley,  1402. 



The  Emperor’s  son  William,  Count  of  Holland  married 
Maud,  daughter  of  Henry,  Duke  and  Earl  of 
Lancaster  K.G.  Blanche,  Lady  Wake,  sister  of 
Lancaster  was  therefore  aunt  of  the  Countess, 
and  through  Margaret,  sister  of  Lord  Wake,  aunt 
of  Joan  Plantagenet. 

The  Count  of  Holland  died  in  1362. 

North  Side. 

No.  17.  ? Tankard  or  Tancred  of  Borough  Bridge,  co.  York. 

Arms — Argent,  on  a chevron  between  three  escallops 
gules  three  annulets  of  the  first. 

(Pryme  does  not  mention  the  annulets,  which  may 
have  become  obliterated.) 

No.  20.  ? Scales.  Robert  de  Scales,  Lord  Scales,  succ.  1332, 

d.  1369. 

Arms — Gules,  six  escallops  3,  2,  1,  or. 

At  Calais:  a Banneret. 

Married  c.1335  Catherine,  sister  and  co-heir  of  William 
Ufford,  2nd  Earl  of  Suffolk. 

? Fulthorp  of  Wassand. 

Roger  de  Fulthorp. 

Commissioner  of  array  at  Hull,  1371,  and  at  Beverley, 

(Pryme  attributes  to  Eastoft  (or  Estoft),  whose  arms 
appear  at  Lockington  (1694)  as  sable,  six 
escallops  or.) 

Four  shields  do  not  appear  to  have  been  identified,  viz.: — 

Nos.  3 and  4 on  the  south  side. 

Nos.  15  and  19  on  the  north  side  (Pryme  Nos.  3 and  7). 

15th  Century  Shields 

Pryme  records  ‘Two  coats  of  arms  in  great  shields  yet  to  be 
seen  in  the  south  window1  of  the  sayd  chancel,”  viz. 

1.  “Montacute.” 

2.  ‘‘Quarterly,  1 and  4 gules.  In  the  first  quarter  of  this  was 
some  sort  of  a cross  (Query  Nevil),  2 and  3 chequy,  az. 
and  or  (Newburgh).” 

Pryme  does  not  describe  the  Montacute  shield,  but  adds 
“This  is  underwritten  Hen.  Earl  of  Salisbury.”2 

In  No.  2,  the  Newburgh  arms  would  be  “chequy  or  and 
azure,  a chevron  ermine.” 

1 Pryme’s  reference  to  “the  south  window’'  of  the  chancel  (which 
had  four  south  windows)  relates  more  probably  to  the  south  window  of  the 

2 There  was  no  Henry,  Earl  of  Salisbury  in  either  the  14th  or  15th 
century.  The  reference  is  perhaps  to  Henry  Beauchamp,  Earl  (and  later 
Duke)  of  Warwick,  who  was  never  Earl  of  Salisbury,  but  whose  sister  and 
heiress,  Anne,  married  Richard  Neville,  Earl  of  Salisbury. 

Note. — The  English  inscription  distinguishes  this  shield  from  the  14th 
century  Montacute  shield  inscribed  “Le  Conte  de  Sarum’’.  (see  p.  277). 



These  two  shields  recorded  by  Pryme  relate  to  the  lordship 
of  Cottingham  Sarum  held  in  succession  by  Montacute  and  Neville 
from  c.1408  to  1485.  The  shields  represent  the  two  earldoms  of 
Salisbury  and  Warwick  and  can  be  dated  about  1460  when 
Richard  Neville  the  younger,  "The  King  maker”  became  Earl  of 
Salisbury.  He  had  already  been  made  Earl  of  Warwick  in  1449 
after  his  marriage  with  Anne  Beauchamp,  Countess  of  Warwick 
in  her  own  right. 

Richard  succeeded  his  father  as  Earl  of  Salisbury  by  right 
of  his  mother  Alice,  daughter  and  heiress  of  Thomas  Montacute, 
4th  Earl  of  Salisbury.  Thomas  Montacute  had  married  Eleanor, 
one  of  the  four  heiresses  of  Thomas  de  Holand,  2nd  Earl  of  Kent 
(see  pedigree  following  p.  268). 

The  arms  of  De  Newburgh,  Earl  of  Warwick,  temp.  Henry 
III  were  afterwards  borne  by  the  Beauchamp  family  who  suc- 
ceeded to  the  earldom  in  1268,  by  the  Nevilles  who  succeeded  in 
1449,  and  by  Richard  Plantagenet  in  1473.  The  Nevilles  also 
displayed  the  arms  of  Montacute  after  the  marriage  of  Richard 
Neville  the  elder,  with  Alice  daughter  and  heiress  of  Thomas 
Montacute,  c.14301  (see  above). 

The  only  surviving  daughter  in  1476  of  Richard  Neville  the 
younger,  who  had  married  the  Beauchamp  heiress,  was  Anne 
Neville  who  in  1473  married  Richard  Plantagenet,  later  Richard 
III;  both  died  in  1485.  In  the  arms  of  Anne  Neville,  impaled 
with  those  of  Richard  III,  the  arms  of  Neville  are  quartered  with 
those  of  Newburgh,  Montacute  and  Beauchamp.2 

It  seems  probable  that  when  the  14th  century  shields  recorded 
by  Dodsworth  disappeared  between  1620  and  1700,  the  two  15th 
century  shields  (not  recorded  by  Dodsworth)  would  perhaps  be 
preserved  because  of  their  association  with  the  lordship  of 
Cottingham  Sarum. 

The  Tudor  Shields 

Pryme  alone  records  the  early  16th  century  shields  in  the 
chancel  roof.  "In  four  great  pains  (sic)  are  the  following  four 
coats  of  arms,  old  painted  with  the  proper  supporters.”3  He  also 
records  a Latin  inscription  on  the  side  of  a balk,  to  the  effect  that 
Andrew  Forman  had  the  chancel  roof  repaired  in  the  year  1504. 

The  date  of  the  three  royal  shields  would  be  1505-6  (18 
James  IV).  Andrew  Forman,  then  Rector  of  Cottingham  and 
Bishop  of  Moray  is  referred  to  by  Pryme  under  No.  4 as  "the 
causer  of  all  these”.  The  date  of  his  own  shield  would  be  1504, 
the  date  of  his  consecration  (see  below). 

Henry  VII  held  Cottingham  Richmond  by  right  of  descent 
from  Holand,  Earl  of  Kent,  and  Cottingham  Sarum  on  the  defeat 
and  death  of  Richard  III  in  1485.  He  presented  Forman  for 

1 Archaeologia,  Vol.  LXXXIX,  PI.  Xlla. 

2 Boutell,  op.  cit.,  p.  166. 

3 Pryme  does  not  describe  the  supporters. 



institution  to  the  benefice  in  1501,  when  on  behalf  of  James  IV, 
King  of  Scotland,  Forman  had  treated  for  the  King’s  marriage 
with  Margaret,  eldest  daughter  of  Henry  VII. 

1.  Henry  VII. 

“France  and  England  quarterly’’ 

“henricus  rex  angliae’’ 

2.  James  IV,  King  of  Scotland. 

“Or  a lion  rampant  gules’’ 
b.  1473,  acc.  1488,  d.  1513. 

“jacobus,  rex  scotorum  illustrissimus  anno  18’’ 

3.  James  IV,  King  of  Scotland  and  Margaret  Tudor  his 


“Scotland  impaling  France  modern  and  England 
quarterly’’  (see  Nos.  2 and  1,  above). 

“Margareta  primo  genita  Henricii 

Regina  Scotorum  praeclarissima’’ 

Margaret  Tudor,  b.  1489,  d.  1541; 
married  by  proxy  January  1503. 

Conducted  by  Forman,  she  passed  through  York, 
July  1503.1 

4.  Andrew  Forman,  Rector  of  Cottingham  1501-1514, 

b.  1465,  d.  1521. 2 
Pryme  describes  No.  4 shield — 

“Quarterly  1 and  4,  Argent3  a nagg’s  head  sable, 
2 and  3,  Azure,  a chevron  between  three  fishes  erect 
argent  (Forman),  with  a mitre  above,  and  the 
inscription  ‘Andreas  Episcopus  Moravien,  anno 
consecrationis’  below.’’ 

Pryme  also  records  “Upon  the  fore  fronts  of  the  great 

seats  (on  either  side  of  the  chancel) is  the  miter  and 

the  aforesayd  coat  of  armes  in  many  places.’’ 

Note.  The  arms  of  Archbishop  Forman  (1520)  are  painted 

1 In  an  account  of  the  Bruce  cenotaph  at  Guisborough  Parish  Church, 
Yorks.,  William  Brown  suggested  that  the  Scottish  royal  arms  were  placed 
on  the  monument  “at  the  instigation  or  expense  of  Margaret  Tudor’’. 
(Yorks.  Arch.  Journal,  XJII,  240). 

2 Andrew  Forman.  A Scottish  ecclesiastic,  educated  at  St.  Andrews; 
he  was  possibly  a Forman  of  Hutton,  near  Berwick  on  Tweed.  Entered 
the  service  of  James  IV  of  Scotland,  who  sent  him  in  1497  to  make  terms 
with  Henry  VII,  and  in  1501  to  treat  for  the  marriage  of  King  James  with 
Henry’s  daughter  Margaret. 

In  1509  ambassador  to  Henry  VII. 

In  1501  he  became  rector  of  Cottingham  and  commendator  of  Pitten- 
weem  in  Fife;  consecrated  Bishop  of  Moray,  1504;  Archbishop  of  St.  Andrews 
and  Primate  of  all  Scotland,  1514. 

In  1513  for  services  to  France,  Louis  XII  secured  his  appointment  as 
Archbishop  of  Bourges,  when  Pope  Julius  II  promised  to  make  him  a 

Died  1521;  buried  at  Dunfermline. 

3 ? Azure. 



in  the  nave  roof  of  the  Cathedral,  St.  Machar,  Aber- 
deen, viz. — 

Quarterly  1 and  4,  Azure  a chevron  between 
three  fishes  hauriant  fawn  colour.1 
2 and  3,  Sable  a camel’s  head  erased  or,  collared 
and  belled  or.2 

5.  “Argent,  a saltire  engrailed  sable — a small  coat  of  arms 
on  either  side  of  the  Forman  arms.’’  (Pryme,  230). 

? Brigham  of  Wyton  and  Brigham  (East  Yorks.). 

Arms — “Argent,  a saltier  engrailed,  vert.’’3 
Ralph  Brigham  of  Brigham  and  Wyton,  son  of  William 
Brigham  (d.  1494)  married  Elizabeth,  daughter  and  co- 
heir of  William  Grimston  of  Cottingham. 

Nos.  6-8.  Pryme  remarks  “Hard  by  in  the  same  roof,  in  less 
and  more  contemptible  scutchions,  is  to  be  seen  the 
following  coats  of  arms,  with  inscriptions  also,  which  I 
could  not  read.’’ 

Since  these  arms  had  inscriptions  it  may  be  assumed 
that  the  shields  as  in  the  case  of  Nos.  1-4,  were  early 
Tudor.  Pryme  makes  no  attempt  to  assign  shields  5-6, 
which  perhaps  related  to  local  Yorkshire  families. 

6.  “Gules,  on  a bend  arg.  (sic)  three  eagles  with  double 
heads  displayed  (qu.  proper),  or.’’ 

A somewhat  similar  unidentified  coat — 

“Argent,  on  a bend  gules  three  double-headed  eagles  or.’’ 
appears  in  a window  of  the  Vicar’s  vestry  in  Holy  Trinity 
Church,  Hull.4 

7.  “Three  chevrons  braced  in  base  or,  a chief  of  the  last.’’ 
Fitz-Hugh.  Richard  Fitz-Hugh,  6th  Lord  Fitz-Hugh  of 

Ravensworth.  b.  c.1457,  d.  1487. 

Governor  of  Richmond,  Middleham  and  Barnard 

His  father  Henry  Fitz-Hugh,  Steward  of  the  honour 
of  Richmond. 

Arms — Azure,  three  chevronels  embraced  in  base  or, 
a chief  of  the  last. 

Note.  Sir  George  Fitz-Hugh  of  Brandesburton,  Yorks, 
died  s.p.  4 Henry  VIII.5 

8.  “Argent,  three  chaplets  gules.’’ 

Attributed  by  Pryme  incorrectly  to  Tilleyole. 

Arms  borne  successively  by  (1)  Lascelles  of  Escrick. 

(2)  Hilton  of  Swine. 

(3)  Hildyard  of  Winestead. 

1 ? Argent. 

2 Usually  “collared  and  belled  gules” 

R.  Davies,  Herald  and  Genealogist,  V,  1 1 . 

3 Poulson,  History  of  Holderness,  II,  Pt.  4,  268/9. 

4 Yorks.  Arch.  Journal,  XXVI,  125. 

5 Poulson,  op.  cit.,  I,  266. 



Matilda,  co-heiress  of  Roger  de  Lascelles  married  1288 
Robert  de  Hilton,  lord  of  Swine.  Hilton  of  Swine 
bore  the  Lascelles  arms  in  the  14th  and  15th  centuries. 

Isabel  de  Hilton,  co-heiress  of  Sir  Robert  de  Hilton,  sheriff 
of  Yorkshire  (d.  1429)  married  Sir  Robert  Hildyard. 
Their  grandson,  Sir  Robert  Hildyard  (d.  1501)  bore 
the  arms  of  Hilton  and  Lascelles  quartered  with 

Sir  Peter  Hildyard  died  1526.1 


De  Luda,  2 a King’s  Clerk,  served  as  Cofferer  of  the  Household  of  Queen 
Isabella  in  1358,  when,  following  the  queen’s  death,  he  prepared  an  inventory 
of  her  possessions. 3 In  his  capacity  as  an  Exchequer  official  he  received 
attorneys  at  Westminster  in  1363.  He  is  referred  to  as  King’s  Treasurer  in 
Ponthieu  in  April  1363,  and  again  in  November  1367,  when  he  had  licence 
to  cross  the  seas  from  Dover  with  six  men  and  six  horses.  4 

Nicholas  de  Louveigne  was  a witness  at  the  Prince’s  marriage  in 
October  1361.  Later  in  the  month  the  Prince  granted  him  100  marks  yearly 
“for  past  and  future  good  service”.  The  following  year  he  was  sent  on  the 
Prince’s  business  to  the  court  of  Rome  and  to  Avignon. 5 

In  1367,  as  Governor  of  the  King’s  lordship  of  Ponthieu  he  went  over- 
seas from  Dover  at  the  same  time  as  de  Luda,  accompanied  by  10  men 
and  10  horses. 6 The  following  year  Louveigne  and  the  Treasurer  were  cap- 
tured when  the  French  invaded  Ponthieu. 

Robert  de  Walsham  was  one  of  the  clerks  and  afterwards  Dean  of  the 
Prince’s  Collegiate  Chapel  of  St.  Nicholas  in  Wallingford  Castle,  1359. 7 
He  was  chaplain  to  the  Prince  at  the  Battle  of  Najera,  1367,  and  an  executor 
of  his  will  in  1376,  where  he  is  described  as  “our  confessor”.8 


Grouped  Shields  of  Edward  Ill’s  family  and  of  the  Black  Prince’s 



An  early  instance  of  the  arms  of  Edward  III  and  his  four  elder  sons 
appears  on  the  tomb  of  Sir  Bartholomew  Burghersh,  K.G.,  in  Lincoln 
Cathedral,  c.1355.  Thomas  of  Woodstock,  the  fifth  son,  born  in  1355  is 
not  represented. 9 

Portraits  of  the  King  and  his  five  sons,  bearing  their  coats  of  arms, 
formerly  appeared  on  a contemporary  frescoe  c.1360,  on  the  east  wall  of 
St.  Stephen’s  Chapel,  Westminster,  destroyed  by  fire  in  1834. 10 

1 Yorks.  Arch.  Journal,  XXVI,  249. 

2 The  family  of  de  Luda  or  Louth  held  lands  in  Lincolnshire  in  the 
13th  century,  when  they  were  settled  at  York.  Gilbert  de  Luda,  bailiff  of 
York  in  1274-5  and  mayor  in  1278  was  lord  of  the  manor  of  East  Ness  in 
Ryedale.  He  died  in  1288,  leaving  a son  Nicholas.  Robert  de  Louth  was 
chamberlain  of  York  in  1387  and  bailiff  in  1388-9.  R.  H.  Scaife,  Kirkby’s 
Inquest  (Surtees  Society  XLIX,  65). 

3 Tout,  Chapters  in  Medieval  Administrative  History , V,  248. 

4 Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  1361-64,  390,  423;  1367-70,  70. 

5 B.  P.  Regr.  IV,  396. 

6 Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  1367-70;  71. 

7 B.  P.  Regr.  IV,  227. 

8 Nichols,  Collection  of  Royal  Wills,  66. 

9 Archaeological  Institute;  Lincoln  Meeting,  1848,  241. 

10  Archaeologia,  XLIX,  250. 



The  arms  of  the  King  and  of  his  three  surviving  sons  (before  1372) 
were  formerly  in  the  church  of  Barnborough,  Yorkshire.1 

Subsequent  to  the  year  1374,  the  family  of  Edward  III  were  represented 
by  heraldic  shields  in  at  least  three  other  places — 

(1)  In  Westminster  Abbey  on  the  tomb  of  Edward  III,  erected  after 
his  death  in  1377.  The  twelve  children  of  Edward  and  Philippa 
were  there  represented  by  their  shields  of  arms  beneath  little  gilt 
statues,  six  on  either  side  of  the  tomb.  The  six  statues  on  the  south 
side  have  survived,  but  only  four  of  the  enamelled  shields  at  their 
feet,  viz.  those  of  Edward  the  Black  Prince,  Lionel  of  Antwerp, 
and  two  daughters,  Joan  de  la  Tour  and  Mary,  Duchess  of 
Brittany.  2 

(2)  At  King’s  Langley,  Herts.,  on  the  tomb  of  Edmund  of  Langley, 
Duke  of  York,  who  died  in  1402.  His  tomb  bears  the  arms  of 
Edmund  and  of  his  three  brothers,  Edward,  Lionel,  and  Thomas 
of  Woodstock.  The  tomb  also  bears  the  arms  of  the  Emperor 
(see  p.  291)  and  those  of  Holand,  for  Edmund’s  second  wife, 
Joan,  daughter  of  Thomas  de  Holand,  2nd  Earl  of  Kent3  (see 
pedigree  following  p.  268). 

(3)  The  chancel  windows  of  St.  George’s  Church,  Stamford  (see  p. 
269,  f.n.  4),  inserted  c.1435,  bore  as  late  as  1641  the  shields  in  painted 
glass  of  Edward  the  Black  Prince,  and  his  three  elder  brothers 
Lionel,  John  and  Edmund.  In  the  east  window  of  five  lights 
three  royal  shields  then  survived,  those  of  Henry,  Duke  and  Earl 
of  Lancaster,  John  of  Gaunt  and  Edward,  Prince  of  Wales.4  It 
seems  probable  that  the  vacant  centre  light  formerly  held  the 
shield  of  King  Edward  III.  None  of  the  shields  survive  today. 


Heraldic  shields  commemorating  the  companions  of  the  Black  Prince 
in  France  appear  in  the  east  window  of  Gloucester  Cathedral,  completed 
before  1350.  A series  of  10  shields  (originally  14)  in  what  is  known  as  “the 
Crecy  window’’,  commemorates  the  Black  Prince,  the  Earls  of  Arundel, 
Warwick,  Northampton  and  Pembroke,  together  with  the  donor,  Lord 
Bradstone  and  other  companions  connected  with  the  Gloucester  region  who 
took  part  in  the  campaign  of  1346. 

In  the  Lady  Chapel  and  Choir  Transept  at  York  Minster,  built  between 
1361  and  1370  contemporaries  of  the  Black  Prince  are  represented  by 
shields  in  the  spandrels  of  the  arcades.  In  addition  to  those  of  the  King, 
the  Black  Prince  and  Joan  Plantagenet,  Countess  of  Kent  are  eight  of  the 
series  formerly  found  at  Cottingham,  viz.  Latimer,  Roos,  Neville,  Montacute, 
Beauchamp,  Percy,  Mowbray  and  Stafford. 


To  Mr.  C.  R.  Grahame  Simmons  for  the  drawing  on  p.  273, 
to  Mr.  E.  F.  Mann  for  the  drawings  on  Plates  I and  II  and  to  the 
Cottingham  Local  History  Society  who  made  them  available. 




II  and 


Dodsworth,  op.  cit.,  119. 

R.  Com.  Hist.  Mon’ts.,  London,  I,  30b. 

R.  Com.  Hist.  Mon’ts.,  Herts.,  134,  and  V.C.H.  Herts.  II,  242,  Pis. 

W.  A.  Rees- Jones,  op.  cit.,  23. 




By  Peter  Wenham. 

1.  Roman  sarcophagus,  Sutton-under -Whitestone  Cliff  (fig.  1 and 
Plates  Ia  and  Ib).1 

On  22nd  December  1956,  while  ploughing  in  one  of  his 
fields  (NGR  499820)2  on  Hood  Grange  Farm,  Sutton-under- 
Whitestone  Cliff,  \\  miles  east  of  Thirsk,  Mr.  John  Brown  hit  the 
top  of  the  lid  of  what  proved  to  be,  on  investigation,  a Roman 
sarcophagus  of  sandstone  only  7 ins.  below  the  modern  surface. 
It  was  orientated  roughly  NNW  (head) — SSE  (feet).  It  was 
cleared  under  the  writer’s  supervision  and  photographed  in  situ 
(Plates  Ia  and  Ib).  Mr.  Brown  kindly  presented  it  to  the  Yorkshire 
Museum,  York. 

The  lid — deeply  scored  by  ploughing  and  broken  into  two 
pieces  in  antiquity — measured  7 ft.  long,  28  ins.  wide  and  9 ins. 
thick  while  the  coffin  was  7 ft.  long,  24  ins.  high,  28  ins.  wide 
with  the  walls  5 ins.,  and  the  base  9 ins.,  thick.  The  cracks  in  the 
lid  were  very  weathered  implying  that  it  had  long  been  broken. 
One  long  side  of  the  lid  had  been  cut  back  to  leave  three  raised 
panels;  the  central  one  is  inscribed  D M,  while  the  two  flanking 
ones  each  have  carved  on  them  what  seems  intended  to  represent 
a pine  cone.  On  one  side  of  the  coffin  is  the  rest  of  the  inscription 
arranged  in  two  lines,  the  lettering  of  the  upper  one  being  4 ins. 
tall  and  that  of  the  lower  3 ins.  While  some  of  the  letters  are 
quite  well  cut,  the  work  as  a whole  is  poor  and,  in  particular,  the 
spacing  between  the  words  is  irregular,  suggesting  that  the 
sculptor  responsible  for  the  job  was  an  inferior  craftsman.  He 
had  had  special  difficulty  with  the  word  MAMMIOLAE,  his  ligatures 
being  confused  with  no  clear  differentiation  between  M’s  and  A’s. 
The  O of  this  name  and  the  last  five  letters  of  the  last  word  on  line 
2 (PIISSIM)  have  partly  flaked  off.  The  full  text  is  as  follows: — 

D M 


D(is)  M(anibus)  I Cosc(oniae)  Mammiolae  coni(ugi)  piissim(ae)  / 
Aur(elius)  Serenus. 

Mammiola  is  a diminutive  formed  from  the  well  attested 
nomen  Mammius,  while  the  nomen  Cosconia  is  the  feminine 

1 Short  accounts  of  this  discovery  have  already  appeared  in  J.R.S., 
xlvii  (1957),  p.  228  and  Report  of  the  Yorkshire  Philosophical  Society  for 
1957  (1958),  p.  5. 

2 O.S.  25  ins.  Yorkshire  [North  Riding]  Sheet  LXXXVIII  14,  field  no.  3. 


Photo.  R.  A.  Hill 

B Crown  copyright  reserved . 

Plate  I.  Roman  sarcophagus,  Hood  Grange  Farm. 

A.  In  situ.  b.  In  Yorkshire  Museum. 










Fig.  1.  Findspot  of  Roman  sarcophagus. 
Hood  Grange  Farm,  Sutton-under- Whitestone  Cliff. 



form  of  the  not  uncommon  nomen  Cosconius  (cf.  the  derivative 
cognomen  on  one  of  the  Carrawburgh  altars  EE  III  185  = Dessau 
4725 — deae  Covventinae,  T.D.  Cosconianus  pr.  coh.  I Bat . l.m. 

The  skeletal  remains  in  the  coffin  were  very  fragmentary 
and  little  could  be  retrieved  of  them;  however,  portions  of  what 
were  clearly  four  femora  were  identifiable.  Professor  R.  Warwick 
of  Guy’s  Hospital  Medical  School,  London,  has  examined  them 
and  reports  that  they  represent  the  remains  of  two  adult  males. 
These  must  constitute  a secondary  burial,  a fact  supported  by  the 
concealment  in  the  ground  of  the  primary  text. 

No  grave  goods  or  other  finds  were  found  in  the  coffin. 
Three  sherds  of  Romano-British  pottery  were  found  near  it  while 
it  was  being  dug  out;  one,  found  just  below  the  bottom  of  the 
lid,  was  of  colour-coated  ware.  The  secondary  interment  therefore 
probably  dated  to  the  3rd,  or  the  4th  century. 

Mr.  Brown  reports  hitting  other  ‘large  stones’  in  this  field 
during  ploughing  which  may  represent  other  sarcophagi.  Some 
12-20  ft.  north  of  this  find  the  writer  uncovered  at  a depth  of 
about  9 ins.  a small  stretch  of  metalling  of  cobbles  and  gravel 
which  might  well  have  been  part  of  a road.  Finally,  crop  marks 
in  the  same  field  some  50  yds.  east  of  the  coffin  indicate  the 
presence  there  of  a large  building  of  some  sort — possibly  a villa.1 

2.  Mediaeval  jug,  Riccall.  (Fig.  2). 

In  the  summer  of  1957  the  Rev.  E.  James,  Vicar  of  Riccall, 
handed  the  writer  the  jug  illustrated  on  fig.  2.  It  was  found,  at 
a depth  of  5 ft.,  by  the  sexton,  Mr.  Horace  Hogger,  when  digging 

Fig.  2. 

Mediaeval  jug  from  Riccall  (J). 

a grave  in  the  churchyard  near  the  gate  at  the  east  end  of  the 
church.  It  has  been  examined  by  Mrs.  J.  Le  Patourel  of  Ilkley  who 
reports  on  it  thus: — 

“Small  red  pot  with  occasional  spots  of  transparent  glaze.  The 
Yorkshire  Museum  has  a series  of  these  little  jugs.  They  are 
roughly  of  15th  century  date.  One  found  at  Skipton  (Yorks.)  in 
1949  with  a coin  hoard  deposited  after  1399  gives  the  date.” 

1 Cf.  York,  A Survey,  1959  (Pub.  British  Association  1959),  p.  105. 



3.  Human  skeletons,  Riccall  Landing.  (Figs.  3-5). 

In  December  1956  the  writer  was  notified  by  Mr.  G.  M. 
Outhwaite  of  Dam  End  Farm,  Riccall,  of  an  archaeological  dis- 
covery in  one  of  his  fields  10  miles  south  of  York  and  4 miles 
north  of  Selby.  While  digging  a clamp  for  mangel-wurzels  in  a 
field  adjoining  the  river  Ouse  and  close  to  Riccall  Landing  he 
had  cut  into  a number  of  human  skeletons  at  a depth  of  about 
12  ins.  below  the  modern  surface.  He  was  of  the  opinion  that 
about  8 had  been  found.  A visit  to  the  site  soon  afterwards  con- 
firmed this  and  revealed  other  skeletons — apparently  undisturbed — 
in  the  side  of  the  trench  dug.  Mr.  Outhwaite  readily  granted 
permission  for  an  excavation  to  take  place  and,  despite  atrocious 
weather  conditions,  six  students  from  St.  John’s  College,  York, 
thirty  Vth  and  Vlth  Form  boys  from  Nunthorpe  Grammar 
School,  York,  and  others  carried  out  a week’s  digging  under  the 
writer’s  supervision. 

The  area  excavated  (approximately  470  sq.  ft.)  is  repre- 
sented by  trenches  1 and  2 on  fig.  4.  In  the  summer  of  1957  a 
further  area  (approximately  150  sq.  ft.) — trench  3,  fig.  4,  was 
excavated  with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  J.  Bailey,  Headmaster  of 
Riccall  County  School  and  some  of  his  senior  pupils.1 

The  findspots  enumerated  above  are  in,  or  adjoining,  River- 
side Field,  one  of  the  19th  century  enclosures  of  the  great  West 
Field  of  the  manor  of  Riccall.  They  are  f mile  west  of  Riccall 
village  near  the  junction  of  Ings  Lane  with  Landing  Lane,  some 
150  yds.  away  from  the  east  bank  of  the  river  Ouse  and  about 
20  ft.  above  O.D.  (NGR  60863736).  Close  to  but  on  the  other — 
the  south — side  of  Landing  Lane  to  this  discovery  is  the  River 
Ouse  Catchment  Board  Depot  which  is  not  marked  on  the  pub- 
lished O.S.  maps.  Written  over  the  site  on  the  25  ins.  O.S.  map2 
are  the  words  “Countinghouse  Hill”,  the  meaning  of  which  is 
obscure.  Half  a mile  downstream  of  the  site  and  on  the  same 
side  of  the  river  at  Long  Rudding  (one  of  the  reaches  of  the  river) 
the  O.S.  maps  have  the  note  “Danes  Landed  A.D.  1066”.  The 
soil  in  the  area  excavated  was  light  sandy  loam,  locally  known 
as  “warp”;  this  made  digging  easy. 

1 In  1958  Mr.  Bailey  and  his  pupils  dug  further  trenches  in  the  grass 
verge  on  the  north  side  of  Landing  Lane  (No.  4 on  fig.  4)  and  found  the 
parts  of  further  skeletons.  They  found  nothing,  however,  to  alter  or  amend 
any  of  the  conclusions  reached  as  a result  of  the  excavations  conducted  in 
trenches  1,  2 and  3. 

Earlier  skeletal  remains,  apparently  in  this  same  locality,  are  referred 
to  in  the  following  paragraph  in  History,  topography  and  directory  of  East 
Yorkshire,  ed.  T.  Bulmer  1892,  p.  699: — 

“Skeletons  and  human  bones  have  been  frequently  dug  up  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  river.  In  a field  near  Riccall  Landing,  some 
60  years  ago,  a quantity  of  ‘bones  and  old  iron’  were  turned  up; 
and  about  10  years  ago,  at  the  Old  Landing  in  the  West  Fields,  10 
human  skulls  were  disinterred,  but  there  was  nothing  to  show 
[who  they  were]’’. 

2 Yorkshire  East/West  Riding  Sheet  CCVI  SW,  1909  edition. 



The  1956  and  1957  excavations  are  considered  together. 
The  following  are  the  discoveries  and  conclusions  resulting  from 
the  work  done. 

1.  The  skeletons — complete  or  incomplete— of  at  least  391 
individuals  were  found  still  in  situ  (fig.  5).  While  some  were 
represented  by  no  more  than  a broken  skull  (e.g.  nos.  15  and  27), 
others  consisted  of  a complete  or  nearly  complete  skeleton  (e.g. 
nos.  11,  12,  17,  25  and  34).  Professor  R.  Warwick  has  examined 
the  skeletal  remains  and  this  is  a summary  of  his  findings: — 


Male  . . 28 

Female  . . . . 2 

Sex  doubtful  . . . . 4 


Between  4 and  12  . . 5 

2.  All  except  one  of  the  skeletons  were  fully  extended,  lying 
on  the  back  with  the  arms  either  down  the  sides  or  across  the 
pelvis.  The  exception  (no.  9)  lay  on  its  right  side  with  the  knees 
slightly  drawn  up. 

3.  All  lay  with  the  feet  to  the  east  and  the  heads  to  the  west. 

4.  The  bodies  had  never  been  interred  in  separate  graves; 
they  had  clearly  been  buried  so  close  together  that  an  individual 
grave  for  each  one  was,  in  fact,  impossible.  All  must  have  been 
buried  together  at  one  and  the  same  time.  It  must  be  stressed 
that  the  burials  had  not  taken  place  in  a communal  pit  in  such  a 
manner  that  the  bodies  had  been  piled  one  on  top  of  the  other: 
only  a single  ‘layer’  of  skeletons  was  found.  After  the  skeletal 
remains  had  been  removed  the  whole  of  the  area  beneath  them 
was  dug  over  to  a further  depth  of  12-15  ins.  and  not  a single  bone 
or  artefact  was  encountered.2 

5.  All  the  skeletal  remains  were  found  near  the  surface. 
The  most  shallow  (no.  7)  was  only  7 ins.  below  the  surface  and 
the  top  of  the  skull  had  been  cleanly  sliced  off  by  ploughing. 
No.  2 was  8 ins.  deep  and  no.  1,  10  ins.  The  deepest  were  no.  4 
(24  ins.),  no.  3 (23  ins.),  and  no.  7 (21J  ins.). 

6.  No  artefacts  of  any  sort  whatsoever  were  found  on, 
alongside  or  under  the  skeletons  excavated. 

7.  No  skeletal  remains  of  any  sort  were  found  in  trench  1. 

Enquiries  among  the  staff  of  the  nearby  Ouse  Catchment 

Depot  have  revealed  that,  over  the  years,  workmen  have  found 
skeletal  remains  at  three  different  places  nearby  when  digging 
holes  for  gateposts.  These  spots  are  marked  on  fig.  4. 

As  already  pointed  out  no  skeletons  were  found  in  trench  1 . 
Mr.  Outhwaite  has  also  informed  me  that  no  skeletal  remains 

1 This  figure  does  not  include  the  8 originally  found  by  Mr.  Outhwaite. 

2 The  one  exception  to  this  was  the  intrusive  hole  found  in  trench  2, 
clearly  dug  long  after  the  initial  interments  (possibly  in  quite  recent  times) 
and  dug  to  re-bury  fragmentary  human  bones,  doubtless  discovered  nearby. 







were  found  when  he  dug  the  trenches  for  the  nearby  “mangel 
clamp  no.  2 ” of  fig.  4.1  It  appears,  therefore,  as  if  the  area  com 
taining  skeletons  did  not  extend  as  far  as  these  two  points.  While 
further  excavation  would  be  needed  to  confirm  it,  my  impression 
is  that  the  burial  area  is  likely  to  have  been  roughly  circular  in 
shape  with  a diameter  70-80  ft.  Assuming  that  the  concentration 
of  skeletons  remained  the  same  as  it  did  in  the  areas  excavated, 
there  would,  on  this  assumption,  have  been  between  500  and  600 
bodies  buried  here. 

Who  were  these  people?  No  artefacts  whatsoever  were 
found  with  the  skeletons  in  the  three  excavations  undertaken. 
This  may  imply  that  they  were  carefully  stripped  of  all  their 
garments  and  possessions  before  being  buried.  The  fact  that 
such  a number  were  buried  at  one  and  the  same  time  (as  stated 
above  500-600  seems  probable)  suggests  that  they  were  interred 
as  the  result  of  some  sudden  calamity.  The  fact  that  they  are  all 
orientated  the  same  way,  laid  out  side  by  side  and  close  together 
mostly  in  an  extended  position  suggests  that  this  was  done 
systematically  and  leisurely  and  not  hurriedly  as  an  emergency 
measure  such  as  might  be  associated  with  a plague  or  epidemic. 
Finally  the  shallowness  of  the  communal  grave  in  which  they 
were  buried  might  be  taken  to  infer  that  they  were  buried  some 
distance  from  any  inhabited  site.  All  the  points  made  above  would 
fit  in  well  with  circumstances  which  must  have  occurred  many 
times  in  British  history — a “tidying  up”  operation  after  a battle. 

The  only  battle  in  the  vicinity  of  Riccall  which  could  supply 
such  a large  number  of  bodies  requiring  burial  is  that  to  be 
associated  with  the  events  immediately  following  the  battle  of 
Stamford  Bridge  fought  on  25th  September,  1066.  Unfortunately 
the  contemporary  or  sub-contemporary  accounts  of  the  battle  are 
vague  and  generally  unhelpful  as  to  details.2  It  seems  clear, 
however,  that  there  was  some  kind  of  running  fight  from  the 
battlefield  at  Stamford  Bridge  to  the  Norse  base  on  the  Ouse, 
13  miles  away,  in  the  vicinity  of  Riccall.  One  of  the  versions  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle3 — of  all  the  accounts  of  the  battle  the 
one  written  nearest  to  the  actual  event — has  this  to  say  of  the 
flight  from  the  battlefield  : — 

“ There  was  killed  Harold  of  the  Fair  Hair  and  Earl  Tosti, 

and  the  Norwegians  who  survived  took  to  flight,  and  the  English 
attacked  them  fiercely  as  they  pursued  them  until  some  got  to 
the  ships.  Some  were  drowned,  and  some  burned,  and  some 
destroyed  in  various  ways  so  that  few  survived  and  the  English 

remained  in  command  of  the  field ” 

This  certainly  implies  some  sort  of  running  fight  from  the  battle 

1 Mr.  Outhwaite  assured  me  that,  while  he  had  never  before  put  down 
a clamp  at  the  particular  place  where  this  1956  discovery  was  made,  he  had 
often  placed  them  nearly  parallel  with  and  close  to,  the  hedge  alongside 
Landing  Lane  some  25-100  ft.  eastwards  but  had  never  encountered  bones 
when  digging  there. 

2 See  F.  W.  Brooks,  The  Battle  of  Stamford  Bridge  (East  Yorks.  Local 
History  Series  no.  6)  1956  for  a useful  modern  summary  of  the  battle. 

3 English  Historical  Documents,  ed.  D.  C.  Douglas,  p.  143,  ‘D’  text. 





Fig.  5.  Findspots  of  the  skeletons. 



field  to  the  base  near  Riccall  and  might  also  be  taken  to  imply 
some  sort  of  ‘last  stand’  there  involving  some  attack  on  the  fleet 
anchored  in  the  river.  This  would  involve  the  interment  of  many 
casualties  after  the  fighting  was  finished — probably  the  res- 
ponsibility of  the  local  inhabitants  (Harold  Godwinson  and  his 
army  were  very  quickly  on  the  move  south  to  London  and  Senlac 
Hill)  and  they  would  doubtless  take  their  pickings  from  among  the 
possessions  of  the  dead.  The  presence  of  a few  women  and  children 
need  not  surprise  us — they  could  represent  either  Norwegians 
who  travelled  with  the  invaders  or  English  civilians  killed  during 
the  retreat  and  last  stand. 

Until  further  evidence  is  forthcoming  the  link  between  this 
archaeological  material  and  the  literary  evidence  must  be  regarded 
as  very  tenuous.  It  is  merely  put  forward  here  as  a possible 
explanation  of  this  strange  archaeological  discovery. 

4.  Stone  cist,  Nawton,  near  Helmsley.  (figs.  6 and  7 and  Plates 
IIa  and  IIb). 

On  Monday,  15th  April  1957,  while  gardening  at  the  rear  of 
his  house,  Mount  Pleasant  Farm,  Highfield  Lane,  Nawton,  near 
Helmsley  (NGR  649863),  Mr.  H.  Kendall  started  to  turn  up,  at  a 
depth  of  about  a foot,  a considerable  quantity  of  rubble  (of  oolitic 
limestone).  Sounding  with  his  spade  gave  out  a hollow,  booming 
noise  which  suggested  a cavity  of  some  sort  beneath.  After 
removing  more  of  the  rubble  Mr.  Kendall  found  a rough  slab 
which  seemed  to  form  part  of  a lid.  He  removed  this  and  saw 
beneath  a cavity  in  which  was  a skull,  apparently  in  excellent 
condition,  together  with  more  bones  indicating  a skeleton.  He 
uncovered  no  more  but  informed  the  Helmsley  Police  who,  after 
visiting  the  site,  contacted  me  with  a view  to  having  the  cist — for 
such  it  proved  to  be — opened  up  under  archaeological  supervision 
and  the  skeleton  examined.  No  praise  is  too  high  for  Mr.  Kendall 
and  Sgt.  F.  Tuplin  who  thus  ensured  that  the  maximum  archaeo- 
logical information  was  obtained  from  the  find.  The  writer, 
together  with  Mr.  Ian  Stead  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  Mr. 
Robin  Hill  of  the  Castle  Museum,  York,  and  Mr.  A.  Pacitto  of 
Helmsley,  visited  the  site  on  the  following  Wednesday  when  the 
top  of  the  cist  was  cleared,  measured  and  photographed  and  the 
slabs  comprising  the  lid  removed,  thus  exposing  a skeleton  in  an 
excellent  state  of  preservation.  The  following  day  Mr.  Pacitto 
and  Mr.  Raymond  Hayes  of  Hutton-le-Hole  completed  the  cleaning 
and  removed  the  skeleton  and  the  latter  took  further  photographs 
(Plates  IIa  and  IIb). 

The  orientation  of  the  cist  was  approximately  NNW-SSE 
with  the  head  to  the  north.  The  skeleton  was  extended  on  its 
back  with  the  feet  close  together;  the  right  arm  was  down  the 
side  while  the  left  was  bent  at  the  elbow  so  that  it  lay  across  the 
abdomen.  No  grave  furniture  of  any  kind  was  found  with  it. 
The  internal  measurements  of  the  cist  were  6 ft.  4 ins.  long,  14  ins. 

A Photo.  R.  Hayes.  B Photo.  R.  Hayes. 

Plate  II.  Cist  found  Mount  Pleasant  Farm,  Nawton. 

Showing  skeleton  in  situ.  b.  Showing  cist  after  skeleton  removed. 



wide  and  12  ins.  deep.  The  bottom  was  paved  with  irregularly 
shaped  slabs  of  oolitic  limestone  (Plate  IIb):  the  sides  were 
formed  of  similar  slabs  overlapping  and  on  edge;  the  covering 
slabs  were  similar,  and  like  those  at  the  sides,  overlapped.  Four 
of  the  slabs  which  covered  the  upper  half  of  the  skeleton  were 
still  in  situ  but  the  five  covering  the  lower  part  had  collapsed. 
This  was  due  to  the  two  stones  which  formed  the  side  near  the 
foot  on  the  west  side  falling  inwards.  They  just  missed  the  legs 
but  covered  the  right  hand,  scattering  the  bones.  The  collapse  of 
these  stones  at  this  point  let  down  the  covering  slabs  but  at  the 
same  time  they  were  sufficiently  thick  to  hold  the  covering  slabs 
clear  of  the  skeleton,  preventing  further  damage  to  it.  The  bottom 
of  the  cist  was  6 ins.  higher  at  the  head  than  at  the  foot.  While 
this  may  have  been  deliberate  so  as  to  raise  the  head  and  upper 
part  of  the  body  above  the  lower  part  when  it  was  interred,  it  is 
more  likely  to  have  been  merely  incidental. 

The  original  grave  dug  to  take  the  cist — the  measurements 
of  which  were  not  ascertained — had  apparently  been  packed  with 
rubble  outside  the  side  slabs  for  at  least  a foot  while  the  lid  had 
been  covered  in  like  manner  to  about  the  same  depth.  The  top 
of  the  rubble,  as  already  explained,  was  only  about  a foot  below 
the  present  ground  surface. 

On  the  basis  of  analogous  discoveries  in  the  same  area  this 
burial  would  seem  to  be  Romano-British,  dating  to  the  late  4th 
century.  During  the  excavation  of  the  Romano-British  pottery 
kilns  at  Crambeck  near  Castle  Howard1  two  stone  cists  very 
similar  to  this  Nawton  discovery  were  found.  Mr.  Philip  Corder, 
who  supervised  the  excavation,  thought  that  they  were  late  4th 
century  or  early  5th  century.  In  one  of  these  cists  was  found  what 
Corder  described  as  "a  small  grey  spherical  vessel”  and  in  the 
other  “the  lower  part  of  a ‘vesicular’  or  black  pitted  cooking  pot.” 
The  former  has  since  been  paralleled  by  a similar  pot  found  in 
1947  by  Mr.  J.  Cundill  in  a field  just  west  of  Church  View,  Sher- 
burn,  East  Yorks.,  during  deep  ploughing  which  revealed  the  floors 
of  several  Romano-British  circular  huts.  This  find  has  not  been 
reported.  Mr.  T.  C.  M.  Brewster  who  examined  the  pottery  has 
written  this  note: — 

One  of  these  huts  yielded  late  4th  century  pottery,  both 
hard  grey  and  Signal  Station  gritted  ware.  Amongst  the  series 
was  part  of  a small  black  burnished  gritted  ware  jar  in  form  and 
fabric  very  close  to  the  Crambeck  vessel  mentioned  above  dis- 
covered by  Corder.  The  Sherburn  pot  had  been  hand-modelled 
from  local  clay,  tempered  with  grit  and  burnished  while  in  the  green 
state,  prior  to  firing  at  a temperature  not  exceeding  circa  700°C. 2 
This  method  of  potting  is  in  the  Iron  Age  tradition  which  began 
about,  or  just  before,  500  B.C.  and  continued,  in  East  Yorkshire, 
throughout  the  Iron  Age  and  in  the  case  of  storage  jars  and  cooking 

1 P.  Corder,  The  Roman  Pottery  at  Crambeck,  Castle  Howard  (Roman 
Malton  and  District  Report,  No.  1),  pp.  18-20. 

2 Staxton  Ware,  Y.A.J.,  xxxix  (1958),  pp.  445-6. 



pots  during  the  Romano-British  period  until  the  beginning  of  the 
5th  century  A.D.  Both  the  Crambeck  and  the  Sherburn  vessels 
bear  some  resemblance  to  Anglian  burnished  ware,  but  this  is 
doubtless  accidental.  The  Sherburn  pot  came  from  a late  4th 
century  deposit. 

Fig.  7. 

4th  cent.  Romano-British  jar  found 
near  Spaunton  (JJ. 

Another  cist  burial  was  found  5 miles  east  of  Nawton  in  a 
field  between  Appleton-le-Moor  and  Spaunton.1  It  contained  a 
skeleton,  what  Home  described  as  an  “Early  Bronze  Age  food 
vessel",  and  other  finds.  This  cist  formed  part  of  the  Kendall- 
Mitchelson  collection  and  until  1919  was  exhibited  in  Pickering 
Town  Hall.  It  is  now  in  the  Yorkshire  Museum,  York  (in  the 
Hospitium)  together  with  the  ‘food  vessel'  which  is  illustrated  on 
fig.  7.  It  is  in  dark  grey  gritted  fabric,  Vesicular'  or  ‘pitted’, 
is  burnished  and  has  similarities  with  the  Crambeck  and  Sherburn 
vessels  discussed  and  described  above.2 

5.  Iron  Age  ‘A’  pottery  at  Kilnsea,  near  Hornsea. 

On  9th  October  1957  Mr.  R.  J.  W.  Batchelor  of  the  Royal 
Engineers  Department,  Victoria  Barracks,  Beverley,  found  on  the 
beach  at  Kilnsea  near  Hornsea,  while  engaged  on  coastal  reclama- 
tion work,  a complete  Iron  Age  ‘A'  cinerary  urn  together  with  the 
fragments  of  two  others.  The  findspots  are  shown  on  fig.  8 which 
is  a portion  of  O.S.  sheet  CCLXIX  8 Yorkshire  (East  Riding) 
1928  edition,  NGR  TA  (54)  42241473.  Mr.  Batchelor  reports  that 
near  the  complete  urn  were  a number  of  cobbles  which  appeared 
to  show  signs  of  burning.  The  urn  contained  a handful  of  calcined 
bones  in  it  when  found:  these  are  still  in  it. 

During  recent  years  the  boulder  clay  cliff  or  the  sand  bank, 
as  the  case  may  be,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  finds  has  receded  con- 
siderably owing  to  sea  erosion.  On  fig.  8 Mr.  Batchelor  has  marked 
the  line  of  the  sea  bank  as  it  was  late  in  1957  in  relation  to  the 

1 Gordon  Home,  Evolution  of  an  English  Town,  1905,  pp.  46-7  and  plate. 

2 Although  she  did  not  give  her  reasons  Mary  Kitson  Clark  identified 
this  Appleton  cist  as  Romano-British  and  included  it  in  her  Gazetteer  [A 
Gazetteer  of  Roman  Remains  in  East  Yorkshire  (Roman  Malton  and  District 
Report,  no.  5),  p.  62]. 






Fig.  9.  Iron  Age  Urns  from  Kilnsea,  near  Hornsea  (£). 

Photos.  R.  A.  Hill 

Plate  III. 

Sides  1 and  2 of  ? Holy  Water  Stoup. 



Mr.  Batchelor  has  presented  the  finds  to  the  Hull  Museum. 
Mr.  John  Bartlett,  Director  of  the  Hull  Museums,  has  drawn  the 
vessels  (fig.  9)  and  has  written  this  note  on  them: — 

1.  (Fig.  9b).  Urn  of  coarse,  buff,  hand-made  pottery,  flat  rimmed, 
shallow  finger  grooves  on  upper  part:  about  11  ins.  in  height. 
No  decoration. 

Late  Bronze  Age  or  early  Iron  Age  A. 

2.  (Fig.  9a).  Large  urn  about  13  ins.  in  height,  well  baked,  buff, 
coarsely  gritted  pottery;  round  rim,  carinated  shoulder; 
blackened  on  outside  towards  rim. 

Early  Iron  Age  A. 

3.  (Not  illustrated).  Sherd  of  early  Iron  Age  pot  with  large 
grits;  everted  rim. 

4.  (Not  illustrated).  Sherds,  coarse,  thick,  fired  buff  and  grey. 
Most  of  these  may  be  part  of  the  base  of  number  2 but  one 
piece  which  is  l\"  thick  is  perhaps  rather  a fragment  of  an 
oven  or  burnt  daub. 

6.  ? Holy  Water  Stoup.  (Plates  III  and  IV.) 

The  object  which  is  the  subject  of  this  account  was  noticed 
by  Mr.  F.  R.  Charmer,  a student  of  St.  John's  Training  College, 
York,  in  the  lounge  of  the  Shoulder  of  Mutton  Inn,  Heworth 
Green,  York,  where  it  was  in  use  in  the  hearth  as  an  ashtray  and 
container  for  the  fire  appliances.  It  was  brought  to  the  writer's 
notice  in  the  last  week  of  October  1958.  Enquiries  from  Mr. 
Eric  Laycock,  proprietor  of  the  Shoulder  of  Mutton,  revealed  that 
it  was  found  in  the  back  garden  near  to  the  surface  in  1956  amongst 
stones  that  had  once  possibly  formed  part  of  a rockery. 

It  measures  roughly  8 x 4|  x 4 ins.  and  is  of  magnesian 
limestone.  In  the  top  is  a Tocus'  or  hollowed  out  portion  roughly 
oval  in  shape  measuring  about  3|  x 3 ins.  The  hollow  is  3 ins. 
deep;  while  the  inch  nearest  the  top  is  smooth,  the  lowest  2 ins. 
are  rough  with  the  chisel  marks  of  the  mason  clearly  showing, 
implying,  perhaps,  that  the  hollow  has  been  deepened  at  some 

The  base  is  irregular  and  shows  signs  of  chisel  marks  sug- 
gesting that  it  might  have  been  cut  from  a larger  stone  of  some 
sort.  Some  of  the  surface  irregularities  on  the  base  have  been 
smoothed  away  by  rubbing  it  on  another  hard  surface.  Some  of 
these  abrasions  are  clearly  very  recent. 

All  four  vertical  sides  are  sculptured:  Plates  III  and  IV 
show  these. 

Plate  Ilia.  The  Crucifixion . 

The  figure  of  the  crucified  Christ  is  in  high  relief,  the  arms 
are  stretched  out  on  the  cross  at  right  angles  to  the  body,  the 
legs  being  crossed  at  the  ankles.  The  head  is  erect,  not  sagging, 
and  the  face,  though  damaged  so  that  the  details  are  practically 
indecipherable,  looks  as  if  it  had  been  bearded.  To  the  left  of 
the  crucifix  are  two  upright  figures,  one  clearly  carrying  a spear. 



They  presumably  represent  the  Roman  soldiers,  Longinus  and 
Stephaton,  traditionally  linked  with  the  crucifixion.  To  the 
right  of  the  cross  is  a cloaked  figure,  apparently  of  a kneeling 

Plate  Illb.  Samson  pulling  down  the  pillars  of  the  house  of  the 
Philistines  at  Gaza. 

A somewhat  grotesque,  mal-proportioned  male  figure 
stands  between  an  archway  consisting  of  two  rounded  columns. 
Carving  to  indicate  stone/brick- work  on  both  sides  of  these 
columns  and  also  above  them  seems  intended  to  convey  the  im- 
pression that  the  building  delineated  is  one  of  some  pretensions. 
Above,  and  slightly  to  the  right  of  the  central  figure,  is  further 
carving  (very  worn)  which  may  be  another  figure  or  figures. 
Each  arm  of  the  central  standing  figure  encircles  a column. 
While  the  effect  may  be  due  to  the  comparative  crudity  of  the 
carving  rather  than  to  any  deliberate  intention  on  the  part  of 
the  sculptor,  this  figure  does  convey  the  impression  of  a heavily 
built,  robust  and  powerful  man.  The  eyes  give  the  impression  of 
blindness  though  this  may  be  due  to  nothing  more  than  the 
limitations  of  the  sculptor;  the  chin  is  bearded  while  the  hair  is 
long — on  the  figure’s  right  it  hangs  down  as  far  as  the  shoulder 
and  on  the  left  to  the  waist. 

Plate  IVa.  The  iconography  of  this  is  puzzling.  Neither  the  Entry 
into  Jerusalem,  nor  Balaam’s  ass — the  immediate  biblical  refer- 
ences which  spring  to  mind — seems  appropriate  and  a closer 
parallel  seems  to  be  the  curious  story  of  the  old  and  new  prophets 
and  the  slaying  of  the  latter  by  a lion  which  is  recounted  in 
First  Book  of  Kings  chap,  xiii,  vv.  11-32. 

Above  the  rest  of  the  carving  in  high  relief  is  what  is  almost 
certainly  intended  to  be  the  head  of  a lion.  The  snout  and  the 
stylised  representation  of  a mane  encircling  the  lower  portion  of 
it  seem  to  rule  out  any  possibility  of  its  being  human. 

Below  this  is  the  very  well  carved  figure  of  a horse  or  ass, 
clearly  male.  It  is  either  being  fed,  or  watered  by  an  upright 
figure  actually  carved  on  the  same  side  of  the  stone  as  the  Samson 
described  above.  While  the  detail  of  the  animal’s  head  and  of 
the  human  figure  are  badly  worn  and  the  identification  of  details 
is  not  easy,  the  human  figure  looks  male  rather  than  female. 
Below  the  animal’s  feet  a portion  of  the  stone  has  broken  off. 
This  would  appear  to  have  happened  after  the  carving  was  com- 

Plate  IVb. 

The  appearance  and  character  of  the  carving  on  this  side 
of  the  stone  is  quite  different  from  that  on  the  other  three  sides 
and  is  clearly  by  a different  hand  and  in  another  (perhaps  non- 
Christian)  tradition.  The  relief  is  much  lower  than  on  the  other 
three  sides,  the  design  is  encased  in  a framework  of  double  incised 

Photos.  R.  A.  Hill. 

Plate  IV. 

Sides  3 and  4 of  ? Holy  Water  Stoup. 



lines  and  the  human  and  animal  figures  which,  on  the  evidence 
of  the  other  sides,  seem  to  have  held  a particular  fascination  to 
the  sculptor,  are  conspicuous  by  their  complete  absence.  The 
whole  treatment  seems  to  fall  more  naturally  into  a classical  or 
even  an  18th  century  context. 

The  surrounding  framework  measures  roughly  5J  x 3J  ins. 
The  representation  appears  to  be  that  of  a vase,  draped,  standing 
on  a plinth. 

The  carving  of  the  crucifixion  on  Plate  Ilia  is  clearly  later 
than  that  of  this  vase.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  where  the 
incised  ‘ 'framework”  around  the  latter  is  missing  (extreme  right, 
facing),  one  of  the  arms  of  the  cross  (left,  facing)  impinges  on  it. 
As  already  mentioned  the  ‘Vase”  side  looks  “classical”  in  concept 
and  either  an  18th  century  or  a Roman  date  would  seem  appro- 
priate. If  the  former  be  accepted  the  three  “Christian”  carvings 
are  all  very  recent  being  19th  or  20th  century.  But  the  fourth 
side  may,  in  fact,  be  Roman,  perhaps  being  the  top  of  a re-used 
altar.  A number  of  facts  would  lend  support  to  this  view — it  is 
of  magnesian  limestone  so  much  used  in  Roman  York;  it  has  a 
classical  motif,  the  draped  urn;  the  upper  smooth  part  of  the 
hollow  in  the  top  may  represent  the  original  focus;  the  “chopped- 
off”  appearance  at  the  base  may  indicate  that  is  it  merely  part 
of  a larger  stone.  If  this  possibility  be  accepted  the  stone  itself 
may  represent  a holy  water  stoup  which  when  in  use  had  its 
“classical”,  pagan  side  hidden  from  view  by  being  placed  against, 
or  built  into,  a wall. 

The  date  of  the  “Christian”  carvings  cannot  be  fixed  with 
any  certainty.  The  stone  itself,  or  photographs  of  it,  have  been 
submitted  to  various  experts  and  the  dates  suggested  range 
from  the  mid- 12th  to  the  19th  century!  This  account  is  pub- 
lished in  the  hope  that  objects  and  carvings  of  a comparable 
nature  may  occur  to  readers  of  these  pages  which  may  enable  a 
more  authoritative  account  of  it  to  be  written  and  a more  definite 
date  ascribed  to  it. 

7.  Discovery  of  Roman  Remains , Railway  Offices,  Holgate  Road, 
York,  1959.  (figs.  10-16  and  Plates  V and  VI,  A and  b). 

In  1958-60  new  offices  were  erected  for  British  Railways  in 
Holgate  Road,  York,  which  entailed  the  pulling  down  of  Holgate 
Villa.  During  the  digging  of  the  new  foundation  trenches  the 
workmen  found  broken  human  bones  in  many  of  them,  including 
two  nearly  complete  skeletons  a yard  or  two  away  from  the 
northern  side  of  the  old  house  (fig.  10,  no.  3).  According  to  the 
workmen  one  of  these  had  a pot  with  it  but  this  was  rotten  and 
broke  into  pieces  when  lifted  from  the  ground.  None  of  these 
finds  were  preserved. 

At  findspot  4 on  fig.  10  in  another  of  the  workmen’s  trenches 
portions  of  a badly  shattered  skull  (not  preserved)  were  found  at 



a depth  of  6 ft.  6 ins.  below  the  modern  surface;  lying  alongside 
it  was  a pair  of  gold  ear-rings  (fig.  15,  nos.  5a  and  5b). 

Crown  copyright  reserved. 

Fig.  10*  Nos.  1-6 — Findspots  of  Roman  remains  found  Holgate 
Road,  York,  1959.  (The  heavy  and  dotted  lines  denote 
Roman  roads — certain  and  conjectural). 


B Photos.  British  Railways. 

Plate  V, 

Roman  sarcophagus,  Holgate  Road,  York. 




On  31st  October,  1959  a stone  sarcophagus  was  discovered 
(fig.  10,  no.  5).  By  permission  of  British  Railways  this  was  ex- 
cavated by  students  of  St.  John's  College  and  of  The  Settlement, 
York  (Plates  Va  and  Vb  and  fig.  11).  It  was  orientated  roughly 
NW-SE;  the  northern  end  being  56  ins.  below  the  modern  surface 
(29  ins.  below  the  Roman)  and  the  southern  end  53  ins.  (29  below 
the  Roman).  Its  measurements  were  as  follows: — 

Lid  Length  78  ins. 

Breadth  24-25  ins. 

Thickness  5-6  ins.  It  had  a very  slight  central 

external  ridge  running  down  the  entire  length. 

Coffin  Length  78  ins. 

Breadth  NW  end  26  ins.,  SE  end  24  ins. 

Height  NW  end  18  ins.,  SE  end  16  ins. 

Thickness  of  the  walls  5-6  ins. 

Depth  inside  13-14  ins. 

Lid  and  coffin  displayed  the  usual  ripple  chiselling  on  both 
outside  and  inside.  The  NW  end  of  the  coffin  was  undercut  at  an 
angle  of  about  45°  (see  fig.  11).  Professor  H.  C.  Versey,  Department 
of  Geology,  University  of  Leeds  has  supplied  this  note  on  the 
geology  of  the  stone. 

‘The  sarophagus  was  made  of  a coarse  gritstone  which  must  have 
come  from  the  Millstone  Grit  of  West  Yorkshire.  This  is,  of  course, 
very  widely  distributed  and  it  is  not  possible,  except  in  very  special 
circumstances,  to  discriminate  between  one  bed  and  another. 
It  may  not  be  a very  scientific  way  of  locating  their  source,  but 
I should  think  it  likely  that  the  Romans  would  notice  suitable 
material  near  their  roads.  The  road  from  York  to  Tadcaster,  Adel 
and  Ilkley  would  be  crossing  a grit  terrain  from  the  vicinity  of 
Scarcroft  across  to  Ilkley,  and  the  specimens  could  have  come 
from  many  places  along  this  route.  Similarly,  the  road  from 
Ilkley  to  Boroughbridge  crosses  a grit  terrain  for  many  miles.  I 
do  not  know  how  the  Romans  would  be  aware  of  the  existence  of 
Gritstone  below  the  surface  except  from  the  result  of  excavations 
at  their  camps  and  where  the  rock  is  exposed  in  crags.  Near  Adel, 
for  example,  the  rock  would  need  quarrying,  but  near  Ilkley  they 
could  get  plenty  from  exposed  blocks  or  from  crags.' 

Both  lid  and  coffin  had  been  cracked  in  antiquity  near  the 
middle.  This  had  allowed  soil  to  get  into  the  interior  and  the 
skeletal  remains  as  found  (Plate  Vb)  were  covered  in  a thin 
layer  of  dark  soil  which  thickened  near  the  centre  beneath  the 
crack  in  the  lid  to  a depth  of  2 ins.  Very  little  of  the  skeleton  had 
survived  and  it  had  clearly  been  disturbed  (in  antiquity  rather 
than  in  recent  times) — for  instance  a femur  was  found  only  a few 
inches  from  what  little  remained  of  the  skull,  while  29  small  iron 
studs  from  a sandal  or  boot  were  found  near  the  middle  of  the 
coffin,  i.e.  some  distance  from  where  the  feet  would  normally  have 
been  in  the  case  of  an  extended  skeleton.  It  seems  clear,  however, 
that  the  body  had  been  buried  with  its  head  towards  the  north 
and  the  feet  to  the  south. 



Professor  R.  Warwick  of  Guy’s  Hospital  Medical  School, 
London  has  reported  thus  on  the  skeletal  remains  in  the  coffin: — 

‘They  are  those  of  one  adult  human.  It  is  almost  impossible  to 
add  anything  to  this,  for  the  bones  available  are  few  and  much 
broken.  In  particular  there  is  not  enough  of  the  skull  to  make 
any  useful  pronouncement  of  sex,  nor  is  much  of  the  pelvis  pre- 
served. Parts  of  right  and  left  femora  and  tibiae  have  been  pre- 
served, but  none  of  these  four  bones  is  complete  enough  for 
measurement  and  hence  estimation  of  stature.  It  is  likely,  judging 
the  remains  as  a whole,  that  they  came  from  a male  adult.  It  is 
impossible  to  assess  the  age  more  accurately.  The  incisors,  canines, 
and  one  molar  from  the  mandible  are  present  and  all  show  signs 
of  marked  wear.  If  this  had  proceeded  at  the  same  rate  as  amongst 
the  Trentholme  people, 1 the  age  might  have  been  about  30  years.’ 



O I 2 3 4 S 

FEET  hn  i . I miwd I ii  i ,mi 

The  only  finds  in  the  coffin  other  than  the  human  bones  and 
the  studs  already  mentioned,  were  two  animal  bones  which  Dr. 
Michael  Ryder  of  the  Wool  Industries  Research  Association, 
Leeds,  reports  on  as  follows: — 

T.  A newly  erupted  6th  sheep  molar,  from  an  animal  just  2 years 
of  age. 

2.  Scapula  (shoulder  blade)  of  a mole  of  average  adult  size.’ 

The  presence  of  the  scapula  is  explained  by  assuming  that 
a mole  found  its  way  into  the  coffin  through  the  crack  in  the  lid 
and  failed  to  get  out  again.  The  sheep’s  tooth  may  represent  a 
food  offering  deliberately  buried  with  the  body,  but  could  equally 
well  have  got  into  the  interior  quite  fortuitously  either  when  the 
sarcophagus  was  first  opened  and  disturbed  or  later  through  the 
crack  in  the  lid. 

1 The  reference  is  to  the  300+  Romano-British  skeletons  examined  by 
Professor  Warwick  from  the  cemetery  in  Trentholme  Drive  in  York  and 
excavated  by  the  writer  1951-8:  report  impending. 


Plate  VI. 

Roman  Well,  Holgate  Road,  York, 


Although  only  a small  area  around  the  sarcophagus  was 
available  for  excavation  it  produced  certain  significant  archaeo- 
logical features.  The  original  grave  dug  to  take  the  sarcophagus 
was  clearly  visible  on  the  two  long  sides  and  gave  a 2-3  ins. 
clearance.  On  one  of  these  sides — the  north — it  had  cut  through 
the  skeleton  of  an  earlier  inhumation.  At  the  south-east  end 
there  was  a large  hole  (no.  2 of  fig.  12)  consisting  of  dark  made-up 
soil  (as  contrasted  with  the  yellow  clay  of  the  undisturbed  subsoil) 
which  linked  up  with  the  grave  dug  to  take  the  sarcophagus  (see 
Plate  Va).  This  had  been  dug  either  when  the  sarcophagus  was 
interred  or  it  might  represent  the  later  robber  trench  which  had 
resulted  in  the  disturbance  already  mentioned.  In  this  hole  only 
Roman  pottery  was  found — 72  sherds  in  all — which  dated  from 
the  late  1st /early  2nd  century  (rusticated  ware)  to  the  4th  (Cram- 
beck  and  calcite  gitted  ware).1 



At  the  other — north-west — end  of  the  area  excavated  part  of 
another  large  Roman  hole  (no.  1 of  fig.  12)  was  encountered  which 
was  clearly  older  than  the  grave  dug  to  take  the  sarcophagus 
(cf.  plate  Va).  One  half  of  the  latter  rested  on  the  bottom  18  ins. 
of  the  soil  constituting  the  black  filling  of  this  hole.  This,  being 
much  softer  than  the  undisturbed  clayey  subsoil  on  which  the 

1 For  an  analysis  of  the  pottery  found,  see  Appendix  I. 



Fig.  13 



other  half  rested,  had,  with  the  passage  of  time,  sunk  and  the 
tensions  thus  set  up  had  eventually  led  to  both  coffin  and  lid 
splitting.  In  this  second  hole  only  Roman  pottery  was  found,  45 
sherds  in  all,  mostly  3rd/4th  century  in  date.1  Sherds  of  colour- 
coated  ware  were  actually  found  under  the  overhanging  upper  end 
of  the  coffin,  which  must,  therefore,  be  of  3rd/4th  century  date. 

Coffin  and  lid  were  broken  up  after  the  excavation  was 
completed  and  incorporated  in  the  concrete  foundations  of  the 
new  (1960)  railway  building. 

Another  discovery  was  that  of  an  oak-lined  well2  at  findspot 
6,  fig.  10  (Plates  VI A and  b).  At  a depth  of  9 ft.  below  the  modern 
surface  the  workmen  found  what  they  described  as  “fragments  of 
a wooden  box”  containing  an  early  complete  jar  (fig.  16,  no.  10). 
I saw  some  of  the  planks  from  this  “box”  which  were  about  30 
ins.  in  length,  6-10  ins.  wide  and  f in.  thick.  In  view  of  what 


(Each  plank  is  about  32  ins.  long.) 

Fig.  14. 

follows  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  these,  in  fact,  represented 
the  highest  surviving  portion  of  the  well  encountered.  In  the  3 ft. 
immediately  below  this  the  workmen  reported  no  further  finds 

1 For  an  analysis~of  the  pottery  found,  see  Appendix  I. 

2 The  wood  was  examined  at  the  Forest  Products  Research  Laboratory, 
Princes  Risborough,  Aylesbury,  Bucks.,  and  was  identified  as  oak  ( Quercus 
sp.).  It  was  described  as  "typical  of  many  such  that  we  have  seen:  the 
overall  dark  coloration  is  probably  due  to  the  presence  of  reaction  products 
of  tannin  which  is  a constituent  of  oak.  The  gross  appearance  of  the  surface 
degradation,  pronounced  in  this  well  sample,  is  similar  to  that  produced  by 
the  cellulose-attacking  microfungi  that  cause  soft  rot,  or  by  bacteria.  No 
trace  of  fungal  remains  could  be  found  so  this  hypothesis  cannot  be  confirmed." 



though  the  soil  which  they  dug  out  was  black — in  marked  contrast 
to  the  undisturbed  brown  clay  which  they  encountered  alongside 
(see  fig.  13).  At  a depth  of  12  ft.  the  wood  reappeared  and  con- 

Fig.  15. 

Holgate  Road,  York.  Finds. 
(Scale  : pottery  ear-rings  j). 



tinued  for  another  5 ft.  down  to  what  was  clearly  the  bottom, 
18  ft.  below  the  modern  surface  (about  14  ft.  below  the  Roman). 
Only  three  sides  of  the  wood  lining  were  seen,  the  fourth  being 
under  the  unexcavated  trench  side.  The  internal  measurements 
were  31  x 31  ins.  The  planks  examined  varied  in  width  from 
6-12  ins.  and  in  thickness  from  J to  1J  ins.  No  nails  were  seen 
in  the  woodwork  and  none  appear  to  have  been  used  in  its  con- 
struction. The  planks  had  been  carefully  tenoned  together:  two 
excellent  examples  of  tusk  tenons  were  retrieved  and  are  illustrated 

Finds  from  the  Roman  Well,  Holgate  Road,  York. 

(Scale  : |). 



(fig.  14).  In  the  bottom  30  ins.  of  the  well  these  finds  were 
retrieved: — 1 

64  Sherds  of  pottery  (analysed  in  Appendix  I). 

12  oyster  shells. 

12  animal  bones  (reported  on  in  Appendix  II). 

2  iron  nails  (fig.  16,  nos.  7a  and  b). 

2 iron  objects,  possibly  bucket  handles  (fig.  16,  nos.  8a  and  b). 

2 unidentified  iron  objects  (fig.  16,  nos.  9a  and  b). 

1 coin  (p.  326,  no.  18). 

Portion  of  bone  pin. 

Portion  of  a (?)bowl  (fig.  15,  no.  6). 

The  latest  dateable  pottery  consisted  of  six  sherds  of  Castor 
ware,  3rd/4th  century.  The  pot  (fig.  16,  no.  10)  apparently  found 
in  the  well  but  at  a considerably  higher  level  is  of  4th  century 
date.  It  seems  likely  therefore  on  this  evidence  that  the  well  was 
filled-in  in  Roman  times,  probably  in  the  first  half  of  the  4th 
century.  The  existence  of  a well  at  this  point  implies  the  presence 
nearby  of  a building  of  some  sort.  This  was  not  within  a radius 
of  15-20  ft.  of  the  well  for  trenches  dug  by  the  workmen,  right  down 
to  the  subsoil,  produced  no  Roman  structural  remains  of  any  sort. 


The  Finds.2 

The  following  is  an  analysis  of  the  pottery  found  in  the  two  Roman 
holes  under  and  alongside  the  stone  sarcophagus  and  in  the  bottom  30  ins. 
of  the  well. 

No.  of  Sherds 

Hole  No.  1 Hole  No * 2 Well 

Samian  Ware — 

Figured  Dr.  37* 




Stamped  base  Dr.  18/31* 




Various  plain  forms 



1 +2*  3 

Rusticated  ware 




Buff/cream/orange  ware 



1+  64 5 

Buff  ware,  colour  coated,  flagons 




Crambeck  ware,  mortar  types 




Colour-coated,  Castor  ware 



3* _l_3*  5 

Calcite  gritted  ware 




Miscellaneous  coarse  grey  ware 




Large  mortar:  coarse  reddish-buff  ware 








1 The  coin,  the  nails,  the  bucket  handles  and  three  of  the  oyster  shells 
were  found  lying  at  the  very  bottom  of  the  well  on  the  natural  soil  (sandy 
gravel)  and  were  retrieved  by  the  writer  personally.  The  other  objects 
were  found  by  the  workmen  in  the  course  of  their  digging,  the  last  find 
listed  above  being  one  of  these.  This  point  is  made  because  the  find  has 
no  recognisable  Roman  parallel;  it  might  have  dropped  into  the  lower  part 
of  the  well  as  a result  of  the  modern  digging  from  a much  higher  and, 
therefore,  chronologically  much  later — even  post-Roman — level. 

2 In  the  descriptions  of  the  various  finds  I have  been  greatly  assisted 
by  Professor  Eric  Birley.  All  the  drawings  on  figs.  15  and  16  are  by  Mr.  Wilfred 
Dodds  of  the  University  of  Durham. 

3 Two  sherds  made  a complete  Dr.  33. 

4 Six  sherds  belong  to  the  same  pot. 

5 Three  sherds  belong  to  the  same  pot. 



Only  those  indicated  above  with  an  asterisk  have  been  drawn  (fig,  15) 
and/or  described  in  this  appendix.  In  nearby  trenches  workmen  found 
other  unstratified  sherds,  two  of  which  have  been  illustrated  (fig.  15,  nos. 
3 and  4)  and  described. 

Found  in  hole  no.  1. 

No.  1 (fig.  15,  no.  1).  Small  piece  from  a Dr.  37  with  winding-scroll 
decoration;  the  large  leaf  in  the  upper  concavity,  the  ovolo  (what  is  left  of 
it)  and  accompanying  coarse  bead-row,  and  what  can  be  seen  of  the  scroll 
itself,  all  point  to  the  work  of  the  potter  Doeccus  (DOIICCI):  cf.  CGP 1 
plate  147,  7.  The  rubbing  of  the  CGP  piece  has  been  checked  against  the 
York  piece,  and  both  are  clearly  the  work  of  the  same  potter. 

No.  2 (fig.  15,  no.  2).  Small  pieces  from  a Dr.  37  with  winding-scroll 
decoration,  in  which  the  lower  concavities  have  contained,  inter  alia,  caryatids 
separated  by  a lion  to  l.  below  a panther  to  r. ; no  doubt  an  arcade  connected 
the  heads  of  the  caryatids.  Below  the  decoration,  one  letter  remains  of  the 
potter's  signature.  Originally  written  in  the  mould,  it  appears  reversed,  in 
slight  relief,  on  the  bowl;  it  is  either  the  initial  letter,  V,  or  the  last  letter, 
A,  of  the  potter’s  name.  Professor  Birley  says  that  his  personal  inclination 
is  to  take  it  as  V,  but  can  produce  no  firm  suggestion  as  to  who  the  potter 

No.  3 (Not  illustrated).  Base  of  Dr.  18/31.  Stamped  MAINACNI  (the 
NA  ligatured).  Oswald,  Index,  pp.  179,  400:  Mainacnus  of  Lubie,  Antonine. 
Note  that  his  stamp  has  been  found  at  Pudding  Pan  Rock,  clear  indication 
of  Antonine  II  (i.e.  post  A.D.  160)  dating.  2 

Found  by  workmen  in  nearby  trenches,  unstratified. 

No.  4.  (Not  illustrated).  Base  of  Dr.  31  stamped  MAXMIIM.  Oswald, 
Index,  pp.  198,  404:  Maximus  of  Lezoux,  Antonine.  Professor  Birley  adds 
that  Oswald’s  “Hadrianic-Antonine”  is  to  be  ignored  as  this  stamp  occurs 
at  Corstopitum. 

No.  5.  (Fig.  15,  no.  3).  Piece  of  a Dr.  37  in  the  style  of  the  potter 
“X — 6”  ( CGP  plates  74-76  and  pp.  148-152):  note  in  particular,  the  dis- 
tinctive leaf,  which  recurs  e.g.  on  CGP  pi.  76,  30.  The  hare  to  l.  (0.2136) 
and  bird  to  l.  (D. 991  =0.2202)  are  straightforward;  at  the  top  right  the  leg 
of  a bird  seems  to  call  for  the  restoration  (as  in  the  drawing)  of  the  bird  to  r 
looking  back  (O.2250A);  this  type  and  0.2136,  were  hitherto  only  known  on 
Antonine  bowls,  whereas  this  one  can  be  dated  with  some  confidence 
c.  A.D.  125/140. 

No.  6.  (Not  illustrated).  Small  fragment  of  figured  Samian,  probably 
Rheinzabern  ware,  date  second  half  of  2nd  century. 

No.  7.  (Not  illustrated).  About  half  of  a flanged  bowl,  without  internal 
wavy  line,  in  the  fabric  characteristic  of  Crambeck  ware  (Gillam  type  229). 

No.  8.  (Fig.  15,  no.  4).  Single  sherd  comprising  part  of  the  side  and 
base  of  ? a shallow  platter.  Red  ware.  Thick  glaze  on  inside  covering  a 
decoration  in  yellow  slip.  ? 16-1 7th  century. 

In  the  well  at  a depth  of  approximately  7 ft.  below  the  Roman 


No.  9.  (Fig.  16,  no.  10).  Large  jar  in  dark  grey,  well  baked  fabric 
with  a metallic  burnish  above  the  belly.  The  fabric  is  not  unlike  that  used 
for  the  big  Crambeck  jars  with  counter-sunk  handles.  4th  century. 

In  the  well;  in  the  bottom  30  ins.,  i.e.  14-15  ft.  below  the  Roman 


No.  10.  (Not  illustrated).  Samian  Dr.  33  with  stamp  MAIORIS. 
For  MAIOR  of  Lezoux  cf.  Oswald’s  Index  p.  197  f.:  the  stamp  has  already 
occurred  on  this  form  at  York.  Second  half  of  2nd  century. 

1 J.  A.  Stanfield  and  G.  Simpson,  Central  Gaulish  Potters. 

2 Professor  Birley  points  out  that  closer  dating  from  stratified  deposits, 
is  not  yet  known  for  this  potter. 



No.  11.  (Not  illustrated).  Two  pieces  conjoining,  and  another,  giving 
the  base  and  part  of  the  body  of  a Castor  ware  thumb-pot  (cf.  Gillam 
type  54).  Early  4th  century. 

No.  12.  (Not  illustrated).  Portion,  insufficient  to  provide  the  basis 
for  a drawing,  from  a castor  ware  vessel;  perhaps  a lid.  Fabric  consistent 
with  a 3rd/4th  century  date. 

No.  13.  (Not  illustrated).  Fragment,  just  over  an  inch  long,  from  a 
bone  pin.  Neither  end  is  preserved  so  that  a drawing  does  not  seem  worth- 
while. It  has  been  burnt,  the  structure  is  not  bedded  and  the  break  is 
lighter  than  the  surface. 

No.  14.  (Fig.  16,  nos.  7a  and  b).  Two  iron  nails. 

No.  15.  (Fig.  16,  nos.  8a  and  b).  Two  iron  objects  looking  like  the 
handles  of  buckets. 

No.  16.  (Fig.  19,  nos.  9a  and  b).  Two  unidentified  iron  objects. 

No.  17.  (Fig.  15,  no.  6).  Portion  of  ? a bowl  with  a neat  egg  and  tongue 
decoration  in  high  relief  almost  immediately  above  the  base.  Buff  fabric, 
colour-coated  grey /brown.  A most  unusual  piece  and  no  parallel  comes 
readily  to  mind.  It  may  not  be  Roman  (see  footnote  1 p.  324). 

No.  18.  Coin.  This  was  badly  corroded  when  found,  but  has  been 
cleaned  and  examined  by  Mr.  John  Kent,  Department  of  Coins  and  Medals, 
British  Museum,  who  has  identified  it  as  a sestertius  of  Hadrian  dating 
c.  A.D.  118-19. 

No.  19.  Animal  bones,  reported  on  in  Appendix  II. 

Found  near  shattered  skull  at  findspot  4,  fig.  10. 

No.  20.  (Fig.  15,  nos.  5a  and  b).  Pair  of  gold  ear-rings.  Diameter  0.7 
ins.  (20  mm.).  A single  one,  like  these  but  slightly  smaller  (diameter  0.50 
ins.,  14.9  mm.),  was  found  in  the  Romano-British  cemetery  in  Trentholme 
Drive  in  1958 — about  half  a mile  from  this  discovery:  hitherto  unpublished 
(fig.  15,  no.  5c).  Professor  Birley  comments  on  them  thus: — 

‘A  closely  dateable  parallel  is  to  be  found  in  British  Museum 
Guide  to  the  Antiquities  of  Roman  Britain  (1922),  p.  70.  Reginald 
A.  Smith  (the  writer  of  that  guide)  illustrates  a gold  ear-ring  of 
the  same  type  from  Milton  Sittingbourne,  near  Bexhill,  found  in 
a lead  coffin  together  with  a jet  pin  (both  illustrated  in  his  fig. 
90,  p.  70).  His  description  of  the  type  can  be  quoted  : 

‘An  ear-ring  of  gold  wire  with  slip  knot  for  adjustment/  He 
adds:  ‘Another  gold  ring  of  the  kind  was  found  in  a child’s 
burial  at  Moorfield,  London  with  jet  rings  and  a gold  coin  of 
Salonina,  the  wife  of  the  Emperor  Gallienus  who  reigned  A.D. 
235-268.'  The  type  was  therefore,  clearly  in  use  in  the  third 
quarter  of  the  third  century. 


Animal  Remains. 

By  Dr.  Peter  A.  Jewell,  Royal  Veterinary  College, 

University  of  London. 

Seven  large  fragments  of  bone  are  from  the  ox  and  come  from  rib, 
radius,  tibia,  humerus,  femur  and  vertebra.  Other  small  but  thick  fragments 
are  presumably  also  from  the  ox.  At  least  two  individuals  are  represented, 
but  sex  cannot  be  determined.  Pig  is  represented  by  a portion  of  the  right 
mandible  in  which  the  third  molar  is  not  yet  erupted,  it  is  therefore  of  a 
young  individual  under  18  months  old.  The  proximal  end  of  a very  small 
pig  radius  is  also  present,  as  the  epiphipis  here  fuses  to  the  shaft  at  an 
early  age  it  could  be  from  the  same  individual  as  the  mandible.  A fragment 
of  bird  bone  comes  from  a small  chicken.  These  are  the  only  domestic 
animals  represented.  The  final  items  of  the  collection  are  two  valves  from 
the  oyster  ( Ostea  edulis ). 



It  may  be  commented  that  the  ox  bones  are  from  a small  animal,  about 
the  size  of  a Jersey  cow.  They  were  hacked  into  pieces  in  antiquity  and 
shows  numerous  cut  marks.  All  the  pieces  are  well  preserved. 


Earlier  discoveries  on  the  site. 

1.  In  1955  by  permission  of  British  Railways,  the  writer  dug  a series 
of  trenches  across  the  gardens  at  the  back  (north)  of  what  was  then  Holgate 
Villa.  The  only  finds  were  a few  sherds  of  miscellaneous  Roman  pottery 
(including  one  of  rusticated  ware)  and  at  the  point  shown  on  fig.  10  (no.  2), 
the  remains  of  the  greater  part  of  a human  skeleton,  clearly  in  situ,  badly 
broken  and  very  rotten.  Immediately  below  it  were  two  sherds  of  colour- 
coated  ware.  The  skeleton,  presumably  Roman,  was  18  ins.  below  the 
modern  surface. 

2.  Near  the  new  railway  building  is  an  empty  stone  sarcophagus 
similar  to  the  one  described  above  in  the  1959  find.  For  over  half  a century 
it  has  been  in  the  garden  of  what  was  Holgate  Villa. 

In  the  Yorkshire  Museum  is  a box  containing  human  bones,  belonging 
to  one  skeleton,  and  in  it  is  this  pencilled  note: — 

"A  series  of  Human  Bones  in  a large  stone  coffin  by  the  sheds  just 
opposite  Holgate  House  (Railway  Sheds)  [found]  by  Mr.  Allison, 
labourer  in  the  Railway  Co.’s  service,  July  29th,  1881." 

Added  above  this  in  the  same  hand,  is  a note — "10/-  the  lot”. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  sarcophagus  and  skeleton  are  to  be 
linked  together,  which  means  that  the  findspot  must  have  been  near  to  that 
shown  on  fig.  10  (no.  1). 

The  staff  of  the  Reference  Department,  York  Public  Library,  have 
kindly  searched  the  files  of  the  local  newspapers  for  June/August  1881  but 
have  found  no  reference  to  this  find. 

Note: — The  course  of  the  two  Roman  roads  as  shown  on  fig.  10  is  based  on 
the  following  published  articles  and  on  other,  as  yet  unpublished,  material: — 
L.  P.  Wenham,  Course  of  the  Roman  Road  from  Sim  Balk  Lane  to 
near  Micklegate  Bar,  York.  (Report  of  the  Yorkshire  Architectural 
and  York  Archaeological  Society  1953-4,  pp.  24-31). 

C.  Dickinson  and  P.  Wenham,  Discoveries  in  the  Roman  Cemetery 
on  the  Mount,  York.  (Yorks.  Arch.  Journal,  xxxix  (1957),  pp.  283- 
323 — especially  fig.  5 and  p.  322  note). 

Thanks.  I wish  to  thank  the  various  specialists  who  have  assisted 
me  in  the  preparation  of  this  paper  and  whose  names  appear  in  the 
text.  The  photograph  on  Plate  Ib  was  taken  by  the  Royal  Com- 
mission on  Historical  Monuments  (England)  and  is  published  with 
their  permission.  The  plans  have  been  drawn  by  Mr.  H.  Richardson 
of  York. 




The  publication  of  two  articles — Thornborough  Cursus,  York- 
shire and  An  Iron  Age  Site  at  Driffield,  East  Riding,  Yorkshire — has 
been  made  possible  by  grants  from  the  Ministry  of  Works.  Sub- 
ventions have  also  been  received  from  the  following  towards  the 
costs  of  their  articles  : — Dr.  Martha  Ellis,  Kenneth  Harrison,  A.  S. 
Harvey,  and  Peter  Wenham. 

The  thanks  of  the  Society  are  extended  to  all  who  have 
helped  so  generously. 

TZhe  Uorhsbire  Hrcbaolocjical  Society. 

Prices  of  the  Journal  of  the  Society,  which  may  be  had  on  application 
to  the  Librarian,  10,  Park  Place,  Leeds  : — 

Yorkshire  Archaeological  Journal,  bound  in 

cloth,  post  free  . . . . . . <£.1  1 0 

,,  ,,  single  parts,*  other 

than  the  current  issue,  prices  on  application  to  the  Librarian. 
,,  ,,  Cases  for  binding  5/6 

(*  with  some  exceptions  which  are  out  of  print). 

All  communications  relative  to  the  Editorial  side  of  the  Journal,  should 
be  addressed  to  the  Hon.  Editor,  L.  P.  WENHAM,  M.A.,  M.Litt.,  M.Ed., 
“Dunelm”,  41,  Wetherby  Road,  Acomb,  York. 


Life  Members  . . . . . . . . . . 15  15  0 

Annual  Members  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..160 

Subscriptions  are  due  on  January  1st,  and  should  be  paid  to  the  Hon. 
Treasurer,  J.  H.  Ogden,  Lloyds  Bank  Ltd.,  Park  Row,  Leeds  1 or  through 
the  Subscribers’  Banker. 

Further  information  can  be  obtained  on  application  to  the  Hon.  Secretary. 

Miss  E.  M.  Walker,  F.S.A.,  6,  Aislabie  Close,  Ripon. 

CATALOGUE  OF  MAPS  AND  PLANS  in  the  Society’s  Library,  1937  2 3 


A full  description,  by  Sir  W.  H.  St.  John  Hope,  with  date-coloured 

Plan  (paper  covers)  . . . . . . . . ..56 


Annual  Subscription,  £1  10  0.  Life  Composition,  £20. 

For  further  particulars  apply  to  the  Hon.  Treasurer, 

J.  H.  OGDEN,  Lloyds  Bank  Ltd.,  Park  Row,  Leeds,  1. 

£ s d 

VOL.  FOR  1956. 


Edited  by  K.  A.  MacMahon  . . . . . . ..200 

VOL.  FOR  1957. 


Edited  by  Sir  Charles  Clay  . . . . . . 1 12  6 

VOL.  FOR  1958 


Edited  by  Sir  Charles  Clay  ..  ..  ..  ..1126 


Annual  Subscription,  Five  Shillings. 

A complete  list  of  publications  can  be  obtained  from 
the  Librarian,  10,  Park  Place,  Leeds. 


Annual  Subscription,  Five  Shillings. 


Annual  Subscription,  Five  Shillings. 


Annual  Subscription,  Half-a-Crown. 


Vols.  I and  III.  Edited  by  William  Farrer. 

Consolidated  Index  to  these  (Extra  Series,  Vol.  IV) 

Vols.  II  and  IV 

Vol.  V (Honour  of  Richmond).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 
Vol.  VI  (The  Paynel  Fee).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 
Vol.  VII  (Honour  of  Skipton).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 
Vol.  VIII  (Honour  of  Warenne).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay  . . 

Vol.  IX  (The  Stuteville  Fee).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 
Vol.  X (The  Trussebut  Fee).  Edited  by  C.  T.  Clay 

Copies  of  Vol.  I are  available  at  7/6  each  (binding  slightly 

each  £10  0 

out  of  print 
out  of  print 
. . £1  10  0 
..£110  0 
..  £2  0 0 
..  £2  0 0 
. . £2  0 0 
. . £2  0 0 



Yorkshire  Jlrchftologtatl  ^ocietp 

10,  PARK  PLACE,  LEEDS.  Tel.  27910. 


Royal  Patron. 

H.R.H.  The  PRINCESS  ROYAL.  C.I.,  G.C.V.O.,  G.B.E. 


The  Most  Reverend  the  LORD  ARCHBISHOP  of  YORK. 

The  Right  Rev.  the  LORD  BISHOP  of  WAKEFIELD. 

The  Right  Rev.  the  LORD  BISHOP  of  RIPON. 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  G.  A.  CHASE. 

The  Earl  of  Scarbrough,  K.G.,  G.C.S.I.,  G.C.I.E.,  G.C.V.O. 

The  Earl  of  Rosse,  M.B.E.,  F.S.A.,  LL.D. 


Revd.  Canon  J.  S.  PURVIS,  O.B.E.,  M.A.,  D.D.,  F.S.A.,  F.R.Hist.S. 


Revd.  Canon  E.  C.  HUDSON,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 

H.  C.  HALDANE,  F.S.A. 

R.  J.  A.  BUNNETT,  F.S.A. 

J.  W.  HOUSEMAN,  M.A.  F.R.Hist.S. 

Sir  C.  T.  CLAY,  C.B.,  Hon.Litt.D.,  F.S.A.,  F.B  A.  (Honorary). 


BRADFER-LAWRENCE,  H.  L.,  f.s.a. 

( Ripon ) 

BRIGGS,  ASA,  professor,  m.a.,, 

f r hist.s.  (Ripon) 
BROOKS,  F.  W.,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  F.R.HIST.S.  (Hull) 
BROWN,  T.  H.  (Middlesbrough) 

DICKENS.  A.  G.,  professor,  m.a.  (Hull) 
DOYLE-DAVIDSON,  W.  A.  G.,  b.a.  (Leeds) 
GEE,  E.  A.,  m.a.,  ph.d.,  f.s.a.  (York) 
HARTLEY,  B.  R.,  m.a.,  f.s.a.  (Leeds) 
HILDYARD,  E.  J.  W.,  m.a.,  f.s.a.,  f.r.n.s. 

( Pickering) 

HIRD,  HORACE,  m.a.,  f.s.a.  (Bradford) 
HUTT,  L.  R (Doncaster) 

KELLETT,  Mrs.  R.  P.,  (Leeds) 
KENT.  B.  W.  J.,  f.s.a.  (Beckwithshaw) 

La  PAGE,  J.,  f.s.a.,  f.r.g.s.,  f.r.hist.s. 


Le  PATOUREL,  J.,  professor,  m.a.,  ph.d. 


PARKER,  R.  G.,  col.,  d.s.o.,  f.s.a.,  j.p. 


PEACOCK,  H.  P.  (Leeds) 

POTTER,  G.  R.,  professor,  m.a.,  ph.d., 

f.s.a.  (Sheffield) 

STONEHOUSE,  E.  C.  (Wakefield) 

SUGDEN,  Mrs.  A.  C.,  m.a.  (Bradford) 
WALKER,  P.  O.,  m.a.,  ll.b.  (Cawthorne 
WHITEING,  R.  H..  f.s.a.  (Beverley) 
WHITELOCK,  DOROTHY,  professor, 

M.A.,  F.S.A.,  F.R.HIST.S.  (Oxford) 

WILLMOT,  G.  F.,  b.a.,  f.s.a.  (York) 

All  Honorary  Officers,  Hon.  Secretaries  of  Committees  and  of  Sections,  and  Representatives 
of  Groups,  and  the  Librarian,  are  ex  officio  members  of  the  Council. 

Honorary  Secretary. 

Miss  E.  M.  WALKER,  F.S.A.,  6,  Aislabie  Close,  Ripon. 

Honorary  Treasurer. 

J.  H OGDEN,  Lloyds  Bank  Ltd,  Park  Row,  Leeds  1. 

Honorary  Editor. 

L.  P.  WENHAM,  M.A.,  M.Litt.,  M.Ed.,  ‘Dunelm’,  41,  Wetherby  Road,  Acomb,  York. 

Hon.  Secretary  for  the  Record  Series. 

Mrs.  P.  Stanley  PRICE,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  Farnley  Old  Hall,  Otley. 

Hon.  Lecture  Secretary. 

R.  J.  A.  BUNNETT,  F.S.A.,  5,  Waverley  Crescent,  Harrogate. 

Hon.  Secretary  Ancient  Monuments. 

C.  E.  HARTLEY,  6,  Margaret  Road,  Harrogate. 

Hon.  Secretaries  of  Committees,  etc. 

Excursions — R.  P.  KELLETT,  B.Sc.,  A.M.I.Mech.E.,  Oakwood  House,  Oakwood  Lane,  Leeds  8. 

Pre-History  Research  Section — J.  R.  LIDSTER,  Art  Gallery  and  Museum,  Waterdale, 


Roman  Antiquities. — Miss  D GREENE,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  30,  Clifton  Mount,  Rotherham. 

Local  History  Study  Section — Miss  A.  W.  RICHARDSON,  The  School  House,  Camblesforth, 

Nr.  Selby. 

Georgian  Section — J.  C.  SCOTT,  “Glengarry,”  The  Raikes,  Skipton-in-Craven. 
Representative  of  the  Harrogate  Group — C.  E.  HARTLEY. 

Representative  of  the  Doncaster  Group — W.  Hardy  STEELE. 

Representative  of  the  Helmsley  and  Area  Group — R.  J.  A.  BUNNETT,  F.S.A. 
Representative  of  the  Forest  of  Galtres  Society— G.  R.  DRAKE. 

Hon.  Secretary,  Pontefract  and  District  Archaeological  Society — K.  GARDINER, 

38,  Tanshelf  Drive,  Pontefract. 

Librarian,  Archivist  and  Assistant  Secretary. 

Miss  A.  G.  FOSTER,  B.A. 

'She  '©torcsbg  Society 


President  The  Rev.  Canon  R.  J.  WOOD,  M.A. 

Hon.  Treasurer  R.  G.  RAWNSLEY,  16,  Queen  Square,  Leeds  2. 

Hon.  Secretary  K.  J.  BONSER,  A.R.I.B.A. 

Assistant  Hon.  Secretary  A.  H.  BO  YES. 

Hon.  Editors  Miss  A.  G.  FOSTER,  B.A.,  and  Mrs.  R.  S.  MORTIMER,  B.A. 
Hon.  Librarian  Mrs.  G.  C.  F.  FORSTER. 

Annual  Subscription  15s.  Od.  Life  Membership  £7.  7s. 



Hrcbasological  Journal. 


IPorfcsbtre  archaeological  Society. 

Part  159. 



The  West  Yorkshire  Printing  Co.  Limited,  Wakefield. 



( being  the  Third  part  of  Volume  XL.) 

IN  FEASEGATE,  YORK,  1955-1957 
Peter  Wenham 


A.  L.  Morton 


Michael  Chadwick 

The  late  Bryan  H.  St.  J.  O’Neil,  F.S.A. 


K.  J.  Allison 

CLIFTON  GRAMMAR  SCHOOL,  Near  Brighouse,  West  Riding 
E.  P.  Green,  B.A.,  M.Ed. 

W.  S.  Rodgers,  M.Com.  (Leeds) 

Martha  J.  Ellis 

THE  PALMES  FAMILY  OF  NABURN  and  their  contribution  to 


Brigadier  T.  B.  Trappes-Lomax 

John  A.  Knowles,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 

A.  S.  Harvey 

Bryan  Waites,  M.A.,  F.R.G.S. 


T.  W.  French,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 
















Excavations  and  Discoveries  Adjoining  the  South-West  Wall  of  the 
Roman  Legionary  Fortress  in  Feasegate,  York,  1955-1957. 

Figs.:  1,  p.  330;  2,  p.  331;  3,  p.  332;  4,  p.  334;  5,  p.  335;  6,  p.  336;  7, 
p.  340;  8,  p.  341;  9,  p . 343;  10,  p.  348. 

Plates:  I and  II,  facing  p.  336;  III  and  IV,  facing  p.  338;  V and  VI, 
facing  p.  344;  VII,  facing  p.  346;  VIII  and  IX,  facing  p.  348;  X 
and  XI,  facing  p.  350. 

A Note  on  Clay  Pipes  from  Hungate,  York. 

Fig.:  1,  p.  379. 

Enclosure  by  Agreement  at  Healaugh  (W.R.). 

Fig.:  1,  p.  384. 

An  Inquiry  into  the  Date  of  the  Stained  Glass  in  the  Chapter  House 
at  York. 

Figs.:  1,  p.  452;  2,  p.  454;  3,  p.  456;  4,  p.  457;  5,  p . 459. 

Notes  on  Two  Heraldic  Tombs. 

Plate:  I,  facing  p.  462. 

The  Monastic  Settlement  of  North-East  Yorkshire. 

Figs.:  1 and  2,  p.  479;  3,  p.  484;  4,  p.  487;  5,  p.  488. 

Part  CLIX 


otkshite  JUcIt^oIagiral  Journal 

FEASEGATE,  YORK,  1955-1957. 

By  Peter  Wenham. 


In  1955  the  site  of  the  Old  Black  Swan  Coaching  Inn  in 
Coney  Street,  York,  and  an  adjacent  site  in  Feasegate  were 
cleared  and  pile  driving  began  in  preparation  for  the  new  premises 
of  the  British  Home  Stores  (figs.  1 and  2).  This  report  deals  with 
the  excavations  and  discoveries  made  in  1955-1957.  Part  I covers 
the  excavations  conducted  there  in  1955  by  the  writer  on  behalf 
of  the  Inspectorate  Branch  of  the  Ministry  of  Works  and  Part  II 
gives  an  account  of  the  incidental  discoveries  which  were  made 
there  after  the  formal  excavation  was  completed. 

I wish  to  thank  the  British  Home  Stores  Ltd.  for  permission 
to  conduct  this  excavation  and  in  particular  Mr.  G.  W.  Clarke, 
their  Chief  Architect;  the  contractors  (Messrs.  W.  Birch  and 
Sons);  Mr.  R.  A.  Hill  of  the  Huntley  Museum,  Edinburgh,  who 
took  all  the  photographs  (except  Plate  III,  taken  by  Mr.  T,  G. 
Manby  and  Plate  IX  by  the  Yorkshire  Philosophical  Society); 
Mr.  H.  Richardson  for  assistance  in  drawing  plans  and  sections; 
Mr.  A.  Sanderson  and  Mr.  W.  R.  Cowl,  site  supervisor  and 
trainee  surveyor  respectively  to  the  contractors,  who  gave 
me  information  about  day-to-day  discoveries ; Mr.  T.  C.  M. 
Brewster  for  his  report  on  the  mediaeval  pottery  and  to  Mr. 
H.  G.  Ramm,  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Historical  Monuments, 
who  gave  me  valuable  assistance  in  assessing  many  incidental 
finds;  other  acknowledgments  occur  in  the  text. 


The  south-west  wall  of  the  Roman  legionary  fortress  was 
known  to  run  across  this  site  and  one  of  the  first  tasks  under- 
taken by  the  contractors  was  to  establish  its  precise  alignment  and 
its  existing  height.  Shallow  trenches  were  therefore  dug  alongside 
it  in  various  places.  Two  of  these  (trenches  1A  and  2 of  fig.  3) 










Fig.  1. 

(1)  4th  century  interval  tower  (SW  5)  excavated  1960. 

(2)  Site  of  H.  Ramm’s  excavation  in  Coney  Street,  1955. 

(3)  Site  of  L.  P.  Wenham’s  excavation  in  Davygate,  1955-58. 

(4)  Site  of  G.  F.  Willmot’s  excavation,  1958. 

(5)  Site  of  Feasegate  excavations  described  in  this  report. 


were  dug  to  a depth  of  8 ft.  below  the  1955  surface.1  Trench  1A 
was  5 ft.  wide  and  extended  4 ft.  away  from  the  outer  face  of  the 
wall;  trench  2 was  of  similar  dimensions  but  was  on  the  inner 
side  of  the  wall. 

At  D on  fig.  3 an  area  4 ft.  deep  and  18  ft.  long  was  cleared 
which  exposed  some  of  the  concrete  core  of  the  wall.  It  was  of 
particular  importance  as  it  just  included  the  beginning  of  the 
return  which  the  4th  century  wall  makes  where  it  joins  the  south 
angle  tower.  (Further  important  evidence  of  the  line  of  the  wall 
in  this  vicinity  was  obtained  when  piles  Nos.  F.l  and  F.22  were 
sunk;  both  of  these  just  grazed  the  inner  side  of  the  wall.) 


Fig.  2. 

Feasegate  excavation  in  relation  to  the  buildings  &c.  in  the  immediate 


Permission  was  kindly  given  by  the  British  Home  Stores,  to 
the  Ministry  of  Works  to  undertake  an  excavation  by  deepening 
and  extending  trench  1A.  It  was  extended  another  6 ft.  (trench 

1 The  present  floor  level  of  the  store  where  it  now  overlies  the  fortress 
wall  is  about  5 ft.  lower  than  the  1955  level. 

2 Throughout  this  paper  pile  Nos.  and  pile  cap  Nos.  relate  to  fig.  3. 


Fig.  3.  Plan  of  the  site  showing  trenches  dug,  piles  sunk  and  other  findspots. 



1 B,  fig.  3)  and,  in  its  deepest  part — nearest  the  fortress  wall — dug 
another  7 ft.  deep;  for  reasons  which  will  be  evident  later  it  was 
not  dug  to  this  depth  throughout.  The  excavation  was  super- 
vised by  the  writer.  Three  men  were  employed,  one  of  whom  was 
Mr.  T.  G.  Manby  who  gave  enthusiastic  assistance  with  many  of 
the  technical  aspects  of  the  work  and  with  the  day-to-day  re- 
cording of  the  finds;  I wish  to  pay  particular  tribute  to  the  help 
he  gave  me.  He  has  drawn  the  pottery.  The  excavation  lasted 
for  three  weeks — 8th-26th  November. 

This  excavation  was  intended  to  complement  that  under- 
taken by  Mr.  H.  Ramm  in  1954  on  behalf  of  the  Ministry  of 
Works  on  a site  in  Coney  Street  some  150  yards  to  the  west  (fig. 
I).1  Mr.  Ramm  dug  a trench  adjoining,  and  at  right  angles  to, 
the  inner  face  of  the  south-west  fortress  wall  and  considered  that 
there  the  existing  stone  wall  in  the  lowest  courses  which  he  ex- 
posed (he  did  not  uncover  the  whole  of  the  foundation)  was  2nd 
century  (Severan)  in  date  with  a 4th  century  rebuild  above. 
Besides  the  Severan  and  4th  century  ramparts  he  had  been  able 
to  identify  three  pre-Severan  clay  ramparts.  He  had,  however, 
found  no  trace  whatever  of  the  first  stone  wall — the  Trajanic — 
and  only  hints  of  what  might  have  been  the  rampart  belonging  to 
it.  The  possibility  that  the  Trajanic  wall  had  been  built  on  a 
line  in  front  of  the  Severan  could  not — on  the  analogy  of  what 
Miller  found  in  his  excavation  on  the  south-east  wall  in  the 
Bedern — Aldwark  sector2  be  ruled  out. 

The  main  purpose  of  this  1955  excavation  was  to  investigate 
this  problem.  Although  the  formal  excavation  itself  did  not  give 
an  unequivocal  answer,  other  evidence  from  the  building  work  on 
this  site — particularly  the  pile  driving — makes  it  certain  that  the 
Trajanic  wall  was  on  the  same  line  as  that  of  the  later  Severan 
and  4th  century  walls.3 

The  unexpected  discovery  of  a flight  of  steps  belonging  to 
a mediaeval  building  (discussed  below)  unfortunately  side-tracked 
the  main  issue  and,  because  of  the  cost  and  technical  difficulties 
involved  in  removing  the  weighty  masonry  of  which  it  was  com- 
posed, the  whole  trench  was  not  dug  to  a uniform  depth  of  15  ft. 
down  to  the  Roman  wall  foundation  as  it  was  in  the  2 ft.  nearest 
to  the  wall  itself. 

The  excavation  is  best  understood  by  referring  to  fig.  4, 
the  sectional  drawing  of  the  trench  and  explaining  the  structures 
and  stratification  encountered  there. 

Layer  1 consisted  of  a concrete  floor  2 ins.  thick  resting  on 
a rubble  foundation  4 ins.  thick.  According  to  the  contractors  it 
dated  c.  1920. 

Layer  2,  4 ft.  6 ins.  deep,  consisted  of  dark,  loamy  soil  such 
as  one  would  associate  with  a garden.  It  contained  a few  cinders, 

1 Reported  in  JRS  xlvi  (1956),  pp.  75-90. 

2 JRS  xv  (1925),  p.  187  and  f. 

3 An  excavation  in  1960  conducted  by  the  writer  on  a site  at  the 
junction  of  Lendal  and  Museum  Street  (see  fig.  5)  has  also  confirmed  this. 


a little  building  rubble  and  a few  sherds  of  19th-20th  century 
pottery  (none  illustrated). 

Layers  3 a and  3b.  Layer  3b  consisted  of  2 ins. -3  ins.  of  black, 
burnt  material,  mostly  charcoal,  running  across  the  whole  length 
of  the  trench.  For  a distance  of  5 ft.  next  to  the  wall  above  this 
was  a layer  (3a)  about  1 ft.  thick  of  rubble,  mortar  and  tiles 
showing  signs  of  burning  and  which  seemed  to  be  associated 
with  the  layer  (3b)  below.  In  layer  3a  were  found  four  sherds  of 
18th  century  pottery  (none  illustrated)  and  a William  III  penny. 








1 - 
































Fig.  4.  Section  of  the  trench  excavated. 








u * 















- DT) 









- CD 

> >-  r-  _ 

10  > gSg 

< OuZ 

O Q*(0< 



* 2 

- CD 

<x  o 
uj  tn 
















£:  _j 

Q Ul 

< z 

> — 

< UJ 
u J 

^ cO 
UJ  — 

Q-  h- 


























< UJ 


a uj 



















CJ  £ 























a < 
ui  o 

I-  3 
OC  (O 


_ 3 
O & 












Ft  ET  ^ n i I ■ I ■ I hi  ■■■  >■  I I l 





Plate  I.  The  excavation — showing  flight  of  steps.  Plate  II.  Top  step  and  threshold  of  door. 


Layer  4,  6 ins.-9  ins.  thick  consisted  of  what  appeared  to  be 
a floor  of  sticky  brown  clay,  containing  pieces  of  tile  and  lime- 
stone chippings.  Imbedded  in  the  clay  were  five  very  small  sherds 
of  pottery  possibly  of  15th/16th  century  date  (none  illustrated). 

Layer  5 consisted  of  clay  similar  to  that  of  layer  4 but  it 
included  a larger  number  of  stones — rough,  limestone  blocks,  and 
cobbles.  In  depth  it  varied  from  4 ft.  nearest  the  wall  to  only  a 
few  inches  at  the  other  end  of  the  trench.  This  layer  clearly 
represented  packing  which  had  been  placed  over  the  flight  of 
steps  below  (layers  6 A-F)  in  order  to  prepare  a level  surface  on 
which  the  floor  above  it  (layer  4)  rested. 

Twenty  sherds  of  pottery  were  found  in  this  packing,  nine 
of  which  are  illustrated  and  described  (Appendix,  pp.  339-342 
and  fig.  7,  Nos.  1-9);  they  are  all  of  13th-14th  century  date. 

Layers  6 A-F.  This  consisted  of  a flight  of  six  steps,  five  of 
stone  (6  B-F  and  plate  I)  and  one  of  cobble  packing  (6 A and 
plate  II).  Between  the  lowest  step  and  the  fortress  wall  was  a 
paved  area  3 ft.  wide  (6F).  The  topmost  step  was  9 ft.  9 ins. 
away  from  the  wall.  The  steps  varied  in  height  6-8  ins.  and  in 
width  from  1-2  ft.  The  four  lower  stone  steps  consisted  of  either 
a single  limestone  block  or  of  two  such  blocks;  in  the  latter  in- 
stances they  were  carefully  mortared  together. 

The  topmost  step  consisted  of  clay,  cobble  and  tile  packing 
behind  a 1 in.  wide  board  set  on  edge;  its  surface  was  of  cobbles 
laid  in  the  clay.  Beneath  the  cobbles,  lying  across  the  length  of 
this  step  were  two  large  planks  or  beams.  Their  purpose  was  not 
absolutely  clear  though  they  may